ohs performance measurement in the construction industry · ohs performance measurement in the...

OHS Performance Measurement in the Construction Industry

Development of

Positive Performance Indicators

OHS Performance Measurement in the Construction Industry

Development of


NATIONAL OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH & SAFETY COMMISSION

DECEMBER 1999

O H S P E R F O R M A N C E I N T H E C O N S T R U C T I O N I N D U S T R Yii

This report results from high degrees of collaboration between the National Occupational

Health and Safety Commission (NOHSC), industry, unions and state jurisdictions to drive the

development of positive performance indicators for the construction industry.

It is the report from an extensive project undertaken by NOHSC, with a working group of

employer and union representatives drawn directly from the construction industry and

representatives from a number of state OHS authorities. It was part of the work program

overseen by the Performance Measurement Advisory Committee of NOHSC. The report

would not have been possible without this level of shared commitment to enhancing the

base of knowledge and response in occupational health and safety (OHS) in Australia.

The report contains timely information for the construction industry which is traditionally

relied on outcome measures for assessment of their OHS performance. The report does not

advocate the abandoning of outcome-oriented indicators for monitoring OHS performance.

To the contrary, it seeks to contribute to an ongoing debate about the importance of

developing positive performance measures to permit the use of an appropriate mix of

positive and outcome indicators when monitoring OHS performance.

The development and use of positive performance indicators will allow construction

enterprises to assess how successfully their enterprise is performing. They offer the

opportunity to intervene in a meaningful way to permit immediate identification of where

improvement strategies can be targeted.

The Construction Working Group recommended that positive performance indicators

identified in this report be the basis of the development of the positive performance

measurement framework at the enterprise level in the construction industry in Australia.

A number of state jurisdictions have indicated their enthusiasm for facilitating that

recommendation in their respective states.

As Chair of the Performance Measurement Advisory Committee and the Construction

Working Group it has been my great pleasure to work with individuals dedicated to the

cause of improved health and safety performance in Australian workplaces. The

construction companies who so generously participated in case studies to test the positive

performance indicators are thanked for their support of the project. Further research is

now planned to consider issues including the validity and practicality of positive

performance indicator frameworks. My express appreciation for the excellent work

undertaken by Rebecca Mitchell, Senior Officer, Epidemiology Unit, National Occupational

Health and Safety Commission as Co-ordinator for the project. She was very ably supported

by Dr Tim Driscoll of the Epidemiology Unit.

Tony Cooke

Chair, Construction Working Group

Member, National Occupational Health & Safety Commission

Foreword

D E V E L O P M E N T O F P O S I T I V E P E R F O R M A N C E I N D I C A T O R S iii

O H S P E R F O R M A N C E I N T H E C O N S T R U C T I O N I N D U S T R Yiv

Table of Contents

Foreword iii

List of Tables and Figures vi

Acknowledgements vii

Executive summary ix

Performance measurement 1

Australian construction industry 7

Non-fatal and fatal injuries in the Australian construction industry 8

Development of performance indicators for OHS in the construction industry 13

Industry case studies 25

Commercial construction 27

Civil construction 37

Heavy engineering construction 51

Domestic housing 61

Positive performance indicators 71

Positive performance indicators for the construction industry 75

Workshop worksheet: developing key performance indicators for OHS 78

Appendixes 82

Appendix 1: Performance measurement construction working group members 82

Appendix 2: Organisational, workplace and workforce characteristics reported

to be associated with injury experience 84

Appendix 3: Risk factors associated with injury in the construction industry 87

References 92

D E V E L O P M E N T O F P O S I T I V E P E R F O R M A N C E I N D I C A T O R S v

List of Tables:

Table1. Gender and employment status of construction workers. Number and

percent – Australia, May 1999

Table 2. Projects of relevance to the development of performance indicators in

the construction industry

Table 3. Case study matrix

Table 4. Organisational factors reported to be associated with lower injury

experience

Table 5. Organisational factors reported to be associated with a poor record

regarding injury experience

Table 6. Workplace factors reported to be associated with lower injury experience

Table 7. Workplace characteristics reported to be associated with lower injury

experience

List of Figures:

Figure 1. OHS performance measurement jigsaw

Figure 2. Occupational group of construction workers. Percent – Australia,

May 1999

Figure 3. Construction activity in Australia by financial year, at average

1989-90 prices

Figure 4. Number of new compensated cases reported in the construction industry

– Australia (excluding ACT and Vic), 1991-97

Figure 5. New compensated cases reported in the construction industry. Rate per

1,000 workers – Australia (excluding ACT and Vic), 1991-97

Figure 6. New compensated cases reported in the construction industry. Rate per

million hours worked – Australia (excluding ACT and Vic), 1991-97

Figure 7. Rate of traumatic work-related fatalities for the construction and all

industries by year – Australia, 1982 to 1984, 1989 to 1992

Figure 8. Employees and employer ratings of risk for immediate injury events in the

painting industry

O H S P E R F O R M A N C E I N T H E C O N S T R U C T I O N I N D U S T R Yvi

List of Tables and Figures

NOHSC wishes to acknowledge the contributions of the following people and

organisations:

Construction working group:

Mr Tony Cooke Trades and Labour Council, Western Australia

Mr Lindsay Fraser Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union,

New South Wales

Mr George Gay Housing Industry Association, Victoria

Mr Daren McDonald WorkCover Authority, New South Wales

Ms Rose Mitchell WorkCover Corporation, South Australia

Mr Peter Moylan Australian Council of Trade Unions, Victoria

Mr Dino Ramondetta Master Builders’ Association, Victoria

Mr David Shaw Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry,

Victoria

Ms Anne-Louise Slack Housing Industry Association, New South Wales

(Observer)

Mr Peter Tighe Communication, Electrical and Plumbing Union

(Engineering and Electrical), New South Wales

Construction companies:

Abigroup Limited Hansen Yuncken

Adelaide Civil (ADCIV) John Holland

Atrium Homes Multiplex

AV Jennings Homes Ltd Stonehenge Homes

Baulderstone Hornibrook Transfield Construction - NSW

Clarendon Homes Thiess Contractors Pty Ltd

Consolidated Constructions VICRoads

Clough Engineering Ltd Walter Construction Group

Consultants:

New Horizon Consulting Workability

Shaw-Idea First Principles for Business Sustainability

D E V E L O P M E N T O F P O S I T I V E P E R F O R M A N C E I N D I C A T O R S vii

Acknowledgements

O H S P E R F O R M A N C E I N T H E C O N S T R U C T I O N I N D U S T R Yviii

The measurement of occupational health and safety (OHS) performance has

traditionally focused on the measurement of outcomes, such as the lost time injury

frequency rate.

The limitations associated with reliance on outcome measures as an indication of

OHS performance have made it necessary for industries to consider alternative

ways of measuring their health and safety performance.

Enterprises conduct many health and safety activities that could be used as

additional measures of OHS performance. These measures, termed process or

positive performance indicators, focus on how successfully an enterprise or

industry is performing regarding OHS initiatives.

This report outlines the process that was taken to develop positive performance

indicators of OHS for the construction industry and recommends positive

performance indicators for the construction industry in Australia. It also includes

a workshop worksheet that will aid enterprises to develop their own positive

performance indicators.

Information regarding OHS performance measurement was gathered from

construction enterprises using case studies in the commercial, civil, heavy

engineering and domestic housing sectors of the construction industry.

Summaries of the case study findings are provided for each sector of the

construction industry. For each sector, the drivers of good OHS performance and

the strategies that are used to manage OHS are described. A list of OHS

performance indicators that were being used by enterprises, and other indicators

that would be of benefit in the sector are presented. Identification of issues that

may influence the OHS improvement in each industry sector are also identified.

D E V E L O P M E N T O F P O S I T I V E P E R F O R M A N C E I N D I C A T O R S ix

Executive Summary

O H S P E R F O R M A N C E I N T H E C O N S T R U C T I O N I N D U S T R Yx

Key drivers of good OHS identified in the case studies were:

■ senior management commitment;

■ competitive advantage obtained through demonstrating and marketing

successful OHS;

■ OHS obligations to employees and the public;

■ external enforcement; and

■ reducing costs associated with poor OHS (e.g. insurance premiums, lost time,

rehabilitation).

Strategies that were undertaken by enterprises as a result of the drivers were:

■ leadership in OHS;

■ design and planning initiatives;

■ methods for consultation, communication and participation;

■ management of sub-contractors;

■ systems and processes to manage OHS;

■ training and education initiatives;

■ risk management and control of hazards; and

■ auditing procedures.

Issues identified in the case study enterprises that may have a significant impact on

OHS performance were:

■ the standard of vocational education and training in the industry;

■ the management of sub-contractors;

■ the type of system (formal versus informal) for managing OHS; and

■ design and constructability of the structure.

The list of positive performance indicators presented in this report is not

exhaustive. Enterprises wishing to identify and tailor specific positive performance

indicators for their OHS management system are encouraged to use the workshop

worksheet to perform this function.

It is suggested that a range of positive performance indicators for OHS be adopted

by an enterprise to enable a reasonable picture of the enterprise’s OHS

performance to be generated. Measuring OHS performance will help enterprises

identify and evaluate OHS improvement strategies. It is critical that enterprises use

this information to better understand and monitor their OHS performance.

Positive performance indicators allow for timely and detailed information

regarding the process of managing OHS to be recorded. That is, the type and

frequency of health and safety activities that are undertaken by the enterprise.

This information can then be used to identify strategies that are working well and

other areas in health and safety that require improvement.

A number of the positive performance indicators identified in this report relate to

OHS management systems, communication, consultation and training, as well as to

management processes and planning and design. These indicators reflect processes

designed to maintain a high level of OHS. It is often suggested that this is best

achieved by the development and implementation of the processes and systems

through close consultation and agreement with workers. This consultative

approach aims to generate recognition and ownership of, and to improve, the

processes and systems. It also aims to allow for a high level of cooperation, and for

behaviour by employers, management and the workforce, to lead to improved OHS

performance.

The construction working group recommend that the 22 positive performance

indicators identified in this report be the basis for the development of a positive

performance measurement framework at the enterprise level in the construction

industry in Australia.

D E V E L O P M E N T O F P O S I T I V E P E R F O R M A N C E I N D I C A T O R S xi

O H S P E R F O R M A N C E I N T H E C O N S T R U C T I O N I N D U S T R Yxii

The monitoring of OHS performance has traditionally focused on measuring outcomes,

such as lost time injuries. However, enterprises are involved in numerous health and

safety activities in an attempt to reduce possible adverse work-related health and safety

outcomes. Measurement of these health and safety activities and/or their outcomes

could form the basis for additional measures of OHS.

Performance measurement

Enterprises typically measure performance to determine whether objectives or

targets are being met. There are numerous areas within an enterprise where

performance monitoring can take place. Some examples include production,

finance or costs, environmental aspects and the health and safety of workers.

Performance measurement is an essential aspect of monitoring and evaluating OHS

performance in an enterprise and/or industry. One of the primary objectives of

measuring OHS performance is to provide feedback regarding health and safety

performance.

The benefits associated with the introduction of a performance measurement

system for OHS include:

■ the ability to provide an indication of how an enterprise is performing in

relation to OHS issues;

■ the ability to identify problem areas where adverse outcomes are occurring and

subsequently to identify where preventive action should take place;

■ the ability to document effects of attempts to improve OHS. For example, a

measurement system could provide feedback as to whether implemented safety

interventions are operating adequately;

■ the ability to promote OHS reviews of existing work practices and work

organisation; and

■ the use of performance measures for benchmarking or comparative performance

assessments.

Performance indicators

In order to measure particular aspects of an enterprise’s OHS performance,

performance indicators are developed for areas that are to be monitored. The New

South Wales Health Department (1998) defines a performance indicator as “a

statistic or other unit of information which reflects directly or indirectly, the

extent to which an anticipated outcome is achieved, or the quality of processes

leading to that outcome” (p3).

Performance Measurement

D E V E L O P M E N T O F P O S I T I V E P E R F O R M A N C E I N D I C A T O R S 1

Performance indicators can be either:

Quantitative - an indicator that can be counted or measured and is described

numerically. For example, number of safety audits conducted.

Qualitative - an indicator that would describe or assess a quality or a behaviour.

For example, worker ratings of management commitment to achieving ‘best

practice’ in OHS.

Types of performance indicators

Measurement of safety performance can involve either outcome-focused or

process-focused (also known as positive) indicators of performance.

Traditionally, many enterprises have used outcome measures of performance to

monitor their OHS performance.

Outcome indicators - have typically focused on the measurement of loss, such as

lost time injury frequency rates (LTIFR), workers’ compensation costs or fatality

incidence rates.

Outcome indicators are:

■ relatively easy to collect;

■ easily understood;

■ obviously linked with safety performance;

■ easily compared for benchmarking or comparative purposes; and

■ are able to be used to identify trends.

However, relying solely on outcome measures of OHS performance as a means of

providing information regarding the performance of OHS has its limitations. For

instance:

■ injuries and fatalities have a low probability of occurring, and so the absence of

unlikely events alone is not a useful indicator of OHS management;

■ outcome indicators largely measure negative performance, i.e. failure;

■ outcome indicators are subject to random variation;

■ outcome indicators may involve under- or over-reporting of work-related

injuries or disease;

■ outcome indicators do not accurately measure long latency occupational

diseases. For example, musculoskeletal disorders and cancers can be difficult to

attribute to work;

■ outcome indicators measure actual injury severity, not necessarily the potential

seriousness of the incident;

■ when LTIFR is low, this rate does not provide adequate feedback for managing

OHS; and

O H S P E R F O R M A N C E I N T H E C O N S T R U C T I O N I N D U S T R Y2

■ outcome indicators generally reflect the outcomes of past OHS practices,

because there is often a time lag before OHS outcomes reflect changes in OHS

practices.1

Many enterprises use LTIFR as the primary measure of their OHS performance.

Hopkins (1995, 1999) warns of the dangers of focusing on the LTIFR as the only

indicator of safety performance because the LTIFR can also be influenced by

factors other than improvements in safety - for example, by improvements in

injury management. For instance, injured workers may return to work after

experiencing a serious injury, still injured, but continue to work by performing

alternative, light duties or through attending training courses. This has the effect

of reducing the lost time injuries recorded without a reduction in the number of

injuries that are occurring.

As a result of the failure of outcome indicators on their own to provide an

adequate indication of how OHS is managed in an enterprise, health and safety

professionals and organisations have identified a need for additional measures of

OHS performance (Ojanen et al, 1988; Amis & Booth, 1992; Kletz, 1993; NOHSC,

1994; Glendon & Booth, 1995; Shaw & Blewett, 1995). Such measures would focus

on the management of OHS in an enterprise and highlight areas in health and

safety where systems and procedures could be improved.

There are many health and safety activities conducted by enterprises that could be

used to generate additional measures of OHS. These indicators would focus on

‘how successfully’ an enterprise or an industry is managing and performing in

relation to OHS. These indicators are often described as process or positive

measures of performance.


1. Amis & Booth, 1992; Shaw & Blewett, 1995; European Process Safety Centre, 1996.

Positive performance indicators - focus on assessing how successfully a workplace

or enterprise is performing through monitoring the processes which should

produce good OHS outcomes. Positive indicators can be used to measure relevant

OHS systems, processes, management and compliance with OHS practices in the

workplace. Examples of positive performance indicators include the number of

safety audits conducted; the percentage of sub-standard conditions identified and

corrected as a result of a safety audit; and the percentage of workers receiving

OHS training.

Advantages of utilising positive indicators of OHS performance to supplement

outcome indictors include:

■ the ability to measure and evaluate the effectiveness of OHS management;

■ the provision of immediate feedback mechanisms regarding the management of

OHS; and

■ provision for immediate improvements to be made to OHS performance, if

required.

There are also weaknesses if only positive indicators of performance are used to

monitor OHS performance, as:

■ they may not directly reflect actual success in preventing injury or disease;

■ they may not be easily measured;

■ they may be difficult to compare for benchmarking or comparative purposes;

■ they may be time consuming to collect;

■ they are subject to random variation;

■ the measurement system may introduce incentives to mis-reporting. For

example, under- or over-reporting; and

■ often the relationship between positive performance indicators and outcome

measures is not known.

By adopting both outcome-oriented (for example, LTIFR) and positive-oriented (for

example, percentage of workers completing OHS training) indicators of OHS

performance, an enterprise should be provided with a more comprehensive view of

their OHS performance (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

OHS Performance

Measurement Jigsaw

Source: Shaw & Blewett

(1994), In NOHSC (1994)


Training

LTIFR

Management

of Hazards

CommunicationOHS

Management

OHS performance measurement in an industry

NOHSC sought to develop a set of indicators (both outcome-oriented and positive-

oriented indicators) to measure the OHS performance of an industry. A number of

industry characteristics were examined to identify the most appropriate industry

for the project. These characteristics included:

■ an industry that had similar work requirements across jurisdictions;

■ an industry that had the ability to adjust for differences in work requirements

across jurisdictions;

■ there was a significant risk of fatal injury, non-fatal injury or disease in the

industry;

■ there was a significant absolute number of occurrences of death, non-fatal

injury and disease in the industry;

■ the industry had the ability to develop appropriate approaches to prevention;

■ there was significant scope for success with prevention efforts in the industry;

■ there was interest from the jurisdictions in the particular industry; and

■ the industry was important in economic terms.

The construction industry was chosen as the most appropriate industry for the

development of performance indicators for OHS.

The construction industry is reasonably standard across jurisdictions in Australia,

was appropriate for the development of performance measures at the workplace

level and had scope for significant improvement with workplace-based

interventions.

The development of performance indicators for OHS in the construction industry

also has relevance for other industries. That is, the process used to develop the

indicators and the outcomes of this report should be relevant to a number of other

industries.


During the 1997-98 financial year, the construction industry in Australia was

estimated to have employed 597,000 people (including employees and self-

employed). This figure represents 7% of employment in all industries (ABS, 1999a).

In May 1999, the construction industry employed 647,300 workers in Australia

(231,100 workers in general construction and 416,600 in construction trade

services) (ABS, 1999b). The majority of workers were male (87.8%) and were

employed full-time (94.8%). Approximately 5% of full-time construction workers

were female, with more female workers employed part-time than males (59.3%)

(Table 1).

Table 1.

Gender and employment status of construction workers

Australia, May 1999

Half of the workers employed in the construction industry in May 1999 were

tradespersons and related workers (49.9%) (ABS, 1999b) (Figure 2).

Figure 2.

Occupation group of

construction workers

(percent)

Australia, May 1999


Australian Construction Industry

Gender Full-time Part-time Totalnumber % number % number %

Male 534,600 94.8 34,100 40.7 568,700 87.8

Female 29,400 5.2 49,600 59.3 79,000 12.2

Total 564,000 100.0 83,700 100.0 647,700 100.0

Clerical and service

Labourers

ManagersProfessionals

Tradespersons

Production and transport

Activity in the construction industry in Australia appears to be increasing,

following the relative lows experienced in the early 1990s. Figure 3 shows that the

value of non-residential construction (for example, offices, shops and hotels) has

risen by 2% and engineering construction (for example, roads, bridges and

sewerage) has risen by 10% between the 1996-97 and 1997-98 financial years. There

has been a substantial rise in residential building construction (for example,

houses, townhouses and apartments) of 19% between the 1996-97 and 1997-98

financial years.

Figure 3.

Construction activity in Australia by

financial year, at average

1989-90 prices

Source: Building Activity, Australia (Catalogue No. 8752.0) and Engineering Construction Activity,

Australia (Catalogue No. 8762.0) cited in Year Book Australia (Catalogue No. 1301.0).

Non-fatal and fatal injuries and disease in the

Australian construction industry

National Data Set

The National Data Set (NDS) contains information regarding workers’ compensation

claims that are made under the respective jurisdictions’ or Commonwealth

Compensation Acts. A workers’ compensation claim is reported in the NDS if the

work-related incident (excluding commuting to and from work) results in a fatality,

permanent disability or temporary disability that results in an absence from work

for five or more working days.

It should be noted that workers who are self-employed are not usually covered by

workers’ compensation and are generally not represented in information from the

NDS. Where appropriate, the denominator data used to calculate the incidence

rates reported per 1,000 workers and per million hours worked has been adjusted

to exclude self-employed persons.

20

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

01988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98

Year

$ billion

Residential Building

Non-Residential Building

Engineering Construction


Compensated work-related injury and disease

Since 1991, on average, about 12,000 workers each year in the construction

industry in Australia (excluding ACT and Victoria) have received compensation for

work-related injuries and disease of five days or more duration (Figure 4).

Figure 4.

Number of new compensated cases

reported in the construction industry -

Australia (excluding ACT and Vic),

1991-97

a: preliminary data.

Source: NOHSC (1998a) Compendium of Workers’ Compensation Statistics, Australia, 1996-97.

Commonwealth of Australia: Canberra.

It appears, after a climb in the rate of new compensated cases reported per 1,000

workers during 1993-94 and 1994-95, there has been a gradual decline in the rate of

new compensated injuries and disease cases in the construction industry (Figure 5).

However, the rate of compensated injuries and disease in the construction industry

in 1996-97, at 37.4 per 1,000 workers, still remained higher than the all-industry

rate in Australia (excluding ACT and Victoria) of 22.9 compensated injuries and

disease per 1,000 workers.

Figure 5.

New compensated cases reported in the

construction industry by financial year.

Rate per 1,000 workers - Australia

(excluding ACT and Vic), 1991-97





1991-92

1992-93

1993-94

1994-95

1995-96

1996-97a-

0 5 10 15

Thousands

Year

1991-92

1992-93

1993-94

1994-95

1995-96

1996-97a

0 5 10 5 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55

Rate per 1,000 workers

Year

Including Victorian data (adjusted to allow for under-reporting of injuries with

between five and ten days off work), the construction industry in 1995-96 had a

national average of 32.8 compensated injuries or disease of five or more days

duration per 1,000 workers. For Victoria during the same timeframe, the rate was

29.0 per 1,000 workers who sustained a work-related injury or disease of five days

or more duration (Labour Ministers’ Council, 1998).

Although the rate of new compensated injuries and disease cases reported in the

construction industry per million hours worked remained higher in 1996-97 (18.5

per million hours worked) than the all-industry rate in Australia (excluding ACT and

Victoria) (12.9 during the same timeframe), there has been a gradual decline from

1991-92 in the rate (Figure 6).

Figure 6.

New compensated cases reported in the

construction industry. Rate per million

hours worked - Australia (excluding ACT

and Vic), 1991-97




Work-related fatalities reported in the National Data Set

Preliminary data indicate that 404 compensated work-related deaths occurred

during 1996-97 in Australia (excluding ACT and occupational disease deaths in

Western Australia) and that 49 of these work-related deaths occurred in the

construction industry (12%).

Information from the NDS, taken during the same preliminary stage of the

respective financial years in Australia (excluding ACT and occupational disease

deaths in Western Australia), indicate that during 1994-95 there were 408

compensated work-related deaths (later revised to 418), of which 30 were of

workers in the construction industry (7%) and that during 1995-96 there were 404

compensated work-related deaths (later revised to 409), of which 46 were of

workers in the construction industry (11%).


1991-92

1992-93

1993-94

1994-95

1995-96

1996-97a

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Rate per million hours worked

Year

It should be noted that not all work-related deaths involve a workers’

compensation payment being made. For instance, where the worker may be self-

employed or if the worker has no dependents to make a compensation claim,

payment will usually not be made. The most recent national work-related fatality

study showed that 30% of work-related traumatic deaths in the construction

industry did not receive workers’ compensation (NOHSC, 1999).

Work-related traumatic fatalities in Australia 1989-1992

Information regarding work-related traumatic fatalities of workers employed in the

construction industry during both 1982 to 1984 (Harrison et al, 1989) and during

1989 to 1992 (NOHSC, 1998b) was obtained from investigations of coronial files.

A detailed examination of fatalities in the construction industry during 1989 to

1992 is available in Work-related traumatic fatalities involving construction

activities in Australia, 1989 to 1992 (NOHSC, 1999).

During 1989 to 1992, there were 256 persons who were fatally injured as a result of

construction activities in Australia. Of these 256 persons, 232 were workers who

were employed in the construction industry, 18 were persons who were working,

but who were not employed in the construction industry, but were fatally injured

on a construction site and six were persons who were fatally injured as bystanders

to construction work.

Workers who were employed in the construction industry (excluding commuting

deaths) had a fatality incidence rate of 10.4 per 100,000 workers per year during

1989 to 1992. This figure is a decrease from the previous national work-related

fatalities study for the 1982 to 1984 period that reported a fatality incidence of

14.1 per 100,000 workers per year (Figure 7). However, fatalities in the

construction industry during 1989 to 1992 remained double the all industry

average of 5.5 deaths per 100,000 person years and equate to 58 workers employed

in the construction industry being fatally injured at work each year.

Figure 7.

Rate1 of traumatic work-related

fatalities for the construction industry

and all industries by year - Australia,

1982 to 1984, 1989 to 1992

1: Incidence rates - deaths per 100,000

workers per year - based on Employed

Civilian Labour Force (ECLF).


21

18

15

12

9

6

3

01982 1983 1984 1989 1990 1991 1992

Year

Rate per 100,000 workers

All Industries

Construction Industry

The process of the development of the OHS performance indicators for the

construction industry is detailed below.

Aim

The aim of the project was to develop in consultation with industry participants, a

set of indicators (both outcome-oriented and positive-oriented indicators) for

monitoring the OHS performance of the construction industry in Australia.

Construction working group

A working group was established to provide advice and to assist in the

development and the progress of the project. The group consisted of NOHSC staff

and representatives of industry, unions, state-based OHS agencies and the

Department of Employment Workplace Relations and Small Business (Appendix 1).

Traditional OHS performance focus

The indicators that the construction industry used to monitor their OHS

performance were examined. Traditionally, the construction industry has focused

on outcome measures of performance to report on OHS. For example, outcome-

oriented measures such as LTIFR or workers’ compensation costs.

There are several limitations in relying solely on outcome measures of performance

as indicators of OHS performance. These limitations are discussed earlier in this

report.

However, there are also some enterprises in the construction industry who have

already adopted, or are beginning to develop, alternative measures to monitor

their OHS performance.

Projects of relevance to the development of performance

indicators for OHS

Several related OHS projects and initiatives regarding performance measurement

or the construction industry that were being or had been conducted in Australia

that might be of relevance to the project were identified (Table 2). This enabled the

project to draw on the work and experiences of other bodies that had considered

similar issues regarding performance measurement or issues specific to the

construction industry.

One of the main issues identified relevant to the construction industry was the

diverse nature of the industry.


Development of Performance Indicators for OHS in the Construction Industry


Body Project

NOHSC Work-related traumatic fatalities in Australia, 1982 to 1984

Work-related traumatic fatalities in Australia, 1989 to 1992

Evaluation of Queensland construction safety 2000 initiative

Report on evaluation of contractor compliance initiatives

Safe design

Drivers for reinforcing OHS accountability in employees with

supervisory responsibilities and gaining business owner and

CEO commitment to OHS

Positive performance indicators: beyond lost time injuries

NOHSC and Construction

Industry Development Agency Occupational health and safety performance manual

Housing Industry Association Small business safety solutions

Industry Commission Performance measures for councils: improving local

government performance indicators

Labour Ministers’ Council Comparative performance monitoring: occupational health

and safety and workers’ compensation

Comparative performance monitoring: comparison of OHS

arrangements in Australian jurisdictions

Master Builders’ Association Meanings of risk control in construction industry small business

NSW Health Department Health outcome performance indicators: Monitoring health

improvement

NSW Minerals Council Moving to the new way of measuring OHS performance

Safety Performance Indicators

(Shipping Industry) Committee Safety performance indicators for the Australian shipping

industry

The Chamber of Minerals

and Energy, WA Guide to positive performance indexing for management of

occupational safety and health in the mining industry

WorkCover NSW Sub-contractor management and site communication

Strategies for OHS management systems

Code of practice for OHS management systems

Safety in design - Guidelines for major building and civil projects

WorkCover SA Safer industries project

OHW&S for contractors

WorkCover VIC Strategic occupational injury prevention. Occupational black

spots Victoria (analysis and priorities)

Foundations for safety, health and safety in the construction

industry

SafetyMap: Auditing health and safety management systems

Worksafe WA Workplace change project report

Mix of measures for industry OHS performance

Table 2.

Projects of relevance to the development of performance indicators in the construction industry

Sectors of the construction industry

The diverse nature of the construction industry, the different types of hazards

experienced in different construction projects and the numerous work practices

adopted to perform a variety of tasks in different sectors of the construction

industry were acknowledged. As a result, the construction industry, for the

purposes of this project, was divided into four sectors, which would be considered

for the development of OHS performance indicators. These four sectors were:

■ commercial construction (for example, factories; high rise apartments);

■ civil construction (for example, roads; bridges);

■ heavy engineering construction (for example, petro-chemical sites); and

■ domestic housing.

Factors that can influence injury experience

A review of the factors that have been reported to be associated with the injury

experience of an enterprise was conducted to provide an indication of the type of

areas where OHS performance indicators should be developed (Appendix 2). Specific

factors in the construction industry which past research has shown can influence

injury experience were also identified (Appendix 3).

An overview of the non-fatal and fatal injury experience of the Australian

construction industry, together with a snapshot of the injury experience of the

construction industry internationally, was conducted (NOHSC, 1999). This overview

sought to determine the common mechanisms of injury and agents involved in the

injurious incidents and also to try to establish possible patterns of injury causation.

Selection of performance indicators

A framework was adopted for the selection of performance indicators for OHS. This

framework proposed that:

(1) the indicators to be developed

(a) should reflect all areas of OHS, such as the OHS management system, site

safety and the workers’ compensation and/or incident experience of the

industry;

(b) should be perceived as useful and also cost-effective for data collection; and

(2) any factors or conditions that could affect the collection of OHS performance

indicators should be identified and considered when developing the indicators.



OHS in the construction industry

From the information and data available, six main areas that were considered to

have an impact on OHS performance in the construction industry were identified.

These six main areas were:

■ commitment by management to safety;

■ an effective OHS management system;

■ risk management and control of hazards;

■ auditing of both management systems and physical hazards;

■ training and education; and

■ communication and consultation.

Further investigation of these six areas and their impact on OHS across industries

was conducted through a brief survey of the research literature.

Commitment by management to safety

Enterprises where management are interested, show commitment to and are

involved in their enterprise’s OHS performance have been demonstrated to have

better safety performance records than firms where senior management is not

interested in OHS performance (Cohen, 1977; Simonds & Saafai-Sahrai, 1977; Smith

et al, 1978; Shannon et al, 1997; Shannon, 1998).

Specifically, Simonds and Saafai-Sahrai (1977) argued that senior management

produce enterprises with better safety records than their competitors when these

managers are involved in safety in terms of:

■ attendance at safety meetings;

■ chairing safety meetings;

■ regularly receiving safety reports;

■ being members of a safety organisation;

■ regularly attending safety meetings or conferences outside the company;

■ emphasising plans for achieving certain safety objectives;

■ actively participating in the execution of safety plans;

■ encouraging reviews of safety plans against objectives; and

■ including safety figures, reports and achievements on the agenda of company

board meetings.

Active support by management for safety programs and the attitude and

commitment of senior management towards safety were cited by Cohen (1977) as

being some of the dominant factors in the success of occupational safety programs.

The commitment and support of management for health and safety were also

characteristics of enterprises with good safety performance records (Cohen, 1977).

Cohen (1977) measured management commitment in terms of whether:

■ the safety officer holds a high staff rank;

■ top officials are personally involved in safety activities. For example, top

officials make safety tours and give personal attention to accidental injury

reports;

■ a high priority is given to safety in company meetings and in decisions on work

operations; and

■ management sets clear safety policy and goals.

Cohen (1977) reported that senior management in enterprises with good safety

performance records placed the same emphasis on safety as on the quality and

quantity of the enterprise’s production and profits.

In a review of the literature, Shannon et al (1997) concluded that enterprises where

senior management played an active role in health and safety consistently had

lower injury rates than enterprises whose managers were not actively involved in

safety.

Shannon (1998) found in several enterprises that management factors that were

associated with lower injury rates in the manufacturing industry included:

■ defining health and safety in every manager’s job description;

■ the inclusion of information regarding health and safety performance in annual

appraisals of managers; and

■ the attendance of senior managers at health and safety meetings.



An effective OHS management system, risk management and

control of hazards

A number of research studies have argued that an established system to manage

OHS and a system to control hazards at the workplace were associated with good

safety records (Simonds & Saafai-Sahrai, 1977; Boden et al, 1984; Gun & Ryan, 1994;

WorkSafe WA, 1998).

Enterprises with good safety performance records had cleaner, better designed and

better environmental qualities (for example, noise, dust, heat, fumes, lighting) at

their work sites than enterprises with poor safety records (Smith et al, 1978).

Enterprises with highly developed safety structures (WorkSafe WA, 1998),

comprehensive, written standard operating procedures (Gun & Ryan, 1994;

WorkSafe WA, 1998) and clearly identified areas regarding the responsibility of

safety (WorkSafe WA, 1998) were found to have good safety performance records

compared with enterprises who did not have these items in place.

Gallagher (1997) found that enterprises with more highly developed health and

safety management systems were more likely to:

■ ensure health and safety responsibilities are identified and known;

■ have senior mangers taking an active role in health and safety;

■ encourage supervisor involvement in health and safety;

■ have health and safety representatives who are actively and broadly involved in

health and safety management system activity;

■ have effective health and safety committees;

■ have a planned approach to hazard identification and risk assessment;

■ give high priority and consistent attention to control of hazards at the source;

■ have a comprehensive approach to workplace inspections and incident

investigations; and

■ have developed purchasing systems.

The presence of a trained, effective health and safety committee was associated

with fewer serious hazards at the workplace (Boden et al, 1984; Gallagher, 1997;

Hale & Hovden, 1998). Reilly et al (1995) found that enterprises in the UK who had a

joint consultative committee set up exclusively for health and safety (where all

employee representatives were chosen by unions) had, on average, fewer employee

injuries compared with enterprises where management deals with health and safety

matters, without consulting with workers. However, there is no clear evidence to

suggest that just the presence of a health and safety committee was associated

with good safety performance in an enterprise (Hale & Hovden, 1998).

Good injury recording systems, one of the components of an effective OHS

management system, were associated with lower work-related injury rates in

enterprises (Simonds & Saafai-Sahrai, 1977; Hale & Hovden, 1998).

Enterprises where good housekeeping procedures were employed were found to

have better safety performance records than those enterprises with poor general

housekeeping (Simonds & Saafai-Sahrai, 1977; Cohen, 1977; Smith, 1978; Shannon

et al, 1997; Harper & Koehn, 1998).

The provision of safety devices and controls on machinery and equipment was

consistently related to lower injury rates in enterprises (Simonds & Saafai-Sahrai,

1977; Shannon et al, 1997).

Auditing of both management systems and physical hazards

The completion of regular safety audits has generally been associated with

enterprises that have lower injury rates and/or successful approaches to health

and safety (Smith et al, 1978; Shannon et al, 1997; WorkSafe WA, 1998). However,

Eisner (1993), in a study of safety rating systems in South African gold mines, found

a poor correlation between the presence of a safety audit system and accident

performance.

Training and education

Several research studies indicate that safety training is associated with good safety

performance in enterprises (Cohen, 1977; Gun & Ryan, 1994; Shannon et al, 1997;

Harper & Koehn, 1998; WorkSafe WA, 1998). The provision of regular safety

training was found to be a common feature of good safety performers (Shannon et

al, 1997; WorkSafe WA, 1998). In enterprises that were not performing as well as

their counterparts, training and induction procedures were found to be

haphazardly arranged and poorly organised (WorkSafe WA, 1998).

The induction of new workers at the workplace and induction in safe working

procedures was also commonly associated with successful safety performance

(Cohen, 1977; Harper & Koehn, 1998).



Communication and consultation

Good communication and good relations between management and workers,

enabling open communication on safety as well as other work-related matters,

have been associated with good safety performance records in enterprises (Cohen,

1977; Smith et al, 1978; Shannon et al, 1997; WorkSafe WA, 1998). Further, Smith et

al (1978) found that enterprises who had good safety performance records had

more frequent and more positive contacts between management and employees,

while management from enterprises with poor safety records had tended to use the

health and safety committee meetings as their only means of interacting with

employees.

Enterprises where there were opportunities for workers to participate, to be

involved in the consultation process and who were able to be involved in

negotiations on health and safety issues were more likely to have good safety

performance records (Shannon et al, 1996; Shannon et al, 1997; Harper & Koehn,

1998; WorkSafe WA, 1998; Shannon, 1998).

Design and planning

Although not initially indicated as an area that has an impact on OHS performance

in the construction industry, design and planning was found to be an important

area during the case study process.

Limitations in the design of machinery, equipment and other devices have been

demonstrated to contribute in some way to several types of incidents, involving

both near misses and fatalities (Casey, 1993). Many of these incidents occur

“because of incompatibilities between the way things are designed and the way

people perceive, think, and act” (p9, Casey, 1993).

The design of a building or structure is an area that has not generally been

considered in detail in Australia as a risk factor for injury in the construction

industry. Bamber (1994) argues that it is vitally important to “ensure that health

and safety [is] built in, rather than bolted on” (p192) in the design and planning of

new construction projects. In Europe, research has indicated that injurious

incidents are occurring in the construction industry due to shortcomings in design

(such as architectural choices and decisions on materials and equipment) (European

Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, 1991;

MacKenzie et al, 1999).

Churcher and Alwani-Starr (1996) considered the design process when determining

the causes of construction injuries and fatalities in the UK. They identified that

36% of incidents were traceable to the nature of the design of the structure and

that 27% of incidents were traceable to the lack of planning of the construction

process.

From the European research, it appears that many injurious incidents are

preventable and consideration should be given to highlighting awareness of the

risks involved in construction work to architects, engineers and designers who may

be in a position to ‘design out’ some of the risks in the construction process to aid

both the initial construction and later maintenance of the structure.

An example of the ability to design out hazards or potential injury risks may be

through prefabricating large elements of the project off site (Neale, 1995; Hinze et

al, 1999) or through completing permanent stairways early in the construction of

structures to minimise the risk of falls (Hinze et al, 1999). Ensuring that items such

as anchorage sockets for brackets and safety harnesses are included in the design

of structures will aid in later maintenance of the structure (European Foundation

for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, 1991).

Preliminary performance indicators

On the basis of linkages demonstrated within the research literature between

positive and outcome indicators of OHS performance, preliminary positive

performance indicators for the six areas thought to have an impact on OHS in the

construction industry were developed. These indicators were:

1. Commitment by management to safety

■ Do management duty statements include OHS? and do management

performance reviews include OHS?

■ Is the OHS policy and/or information regarding OHS performance included in

public company reports?

■ Is there a budget allowance for OHS? (contextual information would be needed

for this indicator. For example, if OHS was taken into account early in the

construction process, an OHS budget would be low. Similarly, if an enterprise

was not adequately budgeting for OHS, their OHS budget would also be low).

■ Worker rating of supervisor/ project manager commitment to OHS.

■ What percentage of OHS committee meetings are attended by senior managers?

■ Are sub-contractors periodic payments reliant on outcomes of OHS audits?



2. An effective OHS management system

■ Does the purchasing policy include OHS requirements? or is OHS taken into

account when purchasing new equipment?

■ Do sub-contractors contracts and/or tenders include adherence to OHS practices?

■ Does the enterprise have an effective OHS management system in place or can

the organisation demonstrate systematic management of OHS?

■ Number, regularity and effectiveness of OHS committee meetings.

■ What percentage of safe operating procedures are developed for work tasks?

■ Is there a preventative maintenance program in place for equipment and/or

machinery?

3. Risk management and control of hazards

■ What percentage of major hazards are controlled and is there demonstrated use

of risk assessment methods (i.e. elimination; substitution; engineering controls;

administrative controls; personal protective equipment)?

■ What percentage of injuries are incurred for identified major hazards?

■ Does the employer have any input regarding OHS in the design of the structure?

■ Observation of general housekeeping on site.

■ Is there a process in place for workers to report hazards in the workplace?

■ What percentage of hazards identified through OHS committee meetings have

been rectified?

4. Auditing of both management systems and physical hazards

■ Number, regularity, quality and outcomes of self assessments conducted (i.e. self

audits).

■ Number of sub-standard conditions identified and corrected as a result of safety

audits.

■ Number, regularity, quality and outcomes of independent assessments conducted

(i.e. independent audits).

5. Training and education

■ What percentage of workers have completed induction training (i.e. general,

work activity and site specific)?

■ What percentage of supervisors/ forepersons have received OHS training?

6. Communication and consultation

■ Do training and operating instructions take into account non-literate workers

(i.e. does training include videos, workshops, demonstrations, audio tapes,

interpreters, if necessary)?

■ How does the organisation communicate to the workforce (eg. toolbox meetings)?

Preliminary outcome performance indicators identified were:

■ Number of injuries involving employees (especially, new employees), sub-

contractors or others on site, including:

■ minor work-related injuries. For example, visits to first aid or medical facility;

■ other work-related injuries which resulted in the worker taking time off work;

■ any work-related injuries that required a worker to undertake alternative work

duties; and

compensable work-related injuries.

■ Number of occurrences where there was damage to property (i.e. machinery,

equipment, structures) or potential injury to employees, sub-contractors or others

(i.e. near misses).

On advice from industry, these performance indicators were categorised by the ‘OHS

phases’ of a construction project. These stages included:

(1) establishment of a charter regarding OHS;

(2) establishment of a site specific OHS management system;

(3) identification of major hazards at the site;

(4) self assessment of the OHS management system;

(5) self assessment of major hazards; and

(6) completion of an independent audit.


Consultation with industry groups

Further consultation with relevant industry groups regarding the preliminary

performance indicators was undertaken and feedback regarding these indicators

was sought. Consultation was undertaken with the Housing Industry in Victoria

and Western Australia; Master Builders’ Association in New South Wales, Victoria

and Western Australia; Civil Construction and Building Committees in South

Australia.

Case studies

Industry case studies were selected as the optimal method of assessing the

feasibility of collecting information regarding the preliminary performance

indicators within the construction industry.

The case study approach has been used in other research studies as a means of

collecting information regarding OHS and assessing the impact of organisational,

workplace and workforce characteristics on injury experience (Simonds & Saafai-

Sahrai, 1977; Smith et al, 1978; Gun & Ryan, 1994; Bentil & Rivara, 1996; Shannon

et al, 1996).


This section provides a summary of the case studies by industry sector. Sixteen case

studies were conducted in four states in Australia and, where possible, across the four

construction sectors by four independent consultants (Table 3):

Table 3.

Case Study Matrix

The industry case studies involved:

■ an assessment of the feasibility of collecting the identified OHS performance

indicators in the case study enterprises;

■ identification of any indicators that were currently being used to assess OHS

performance in the case study enterprises;

■ identification of alternative, existing OHS performance indicators in the case

study enterprises that could be used to assess any of the six identified areas that

have an impact on OHS in the construction industry; and

■ determination of whether the performance indicators are true measures of the

‘drivers’ of OHS in the case study enterprises.

Data collection took place over a three month period, using a combination of data

collection tools to obtain reliable and valid information. The tools were:

■ structured interviews using a long form questionnaire to obtain detailed and

specific responses;

■ semi structured interviews using open ended questions;

■ a short workshop with relevant groups from the case study enterprises to elicit

potential OHS indicators and measures of relevance to the case study

enterprises; and

■ review and analysis of secondary data sources such as OHS documentation

maintained by the case study enterprises.

Where possible, one or more construction projects were selected as the focus for

data collection in each case study. Representatives from corporate OHS personnel,

site-based OHS personnel, project and line management, union representatives,

sub-contractors and the workforce were selected from each case study enterprise

to take part in the research.

Industry Case Studies

Industry Sector New South Wales Victoria South Australia Western Australia

Commercial ✔✔ ✔✔ ✔ ✘

Civil ✘ ✔ ✔ ✔✔

Heavy engineering ✔ ✘ ✔ ✔

Domestic housing ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔


Findings reported in the summary have been checked for accuracy and cleared

with the case study enterprises.

The summary for each construction sector provides:

■ a brief profile of the case study enterprises in the sector;

■ a description of the drivers of good OHS performance which were identified in

the case study enterprises;

■ a description of the strategies the case study enterprises use to manage OHS;

■ a list of the OHS performance indicators in use by the case study enterprises;

■ a list of the OHS performance indicators the case study enterprises would like or

plan to use; and

■ a description of the issues of significance revealed by the case studies which may

have significant impact on OHS performance and the capacity for performance

improvement in the sector.


Profile of case study enterprises

Five case studies were conducted of companies operating in the commercial sector

of the industry:

■ the NSW division of Walter Construction Group, a large multinational

construction company which directly employs 1000 workers in Australia;

■ the NSW division of Abigroup Limited, which directly employs 900 workers

across Australia;

■ the SA division of Baulderstone Hornibrook, a medium sized national building

company;

■ the Victorian division of Hansen Yuncken, with 75 direct employees in the

division; and

■ the Victorian division of Multiplex, a large national construction company with

170 direct employees in Victoria.

Key drivers identified by case study enterprises

The following drivers of good OHS performance were identified in the case study

enterprises:

Senior management commitment

This was identified as a critical issue in each case study enterprise. It was created by

a range of other drivers, listed below, as well as a sincere concern for employees. At

one case study enterprise, it was considered easier to gain support for some OHS

initiatives, particularly those that were resource-intensive, because of this

commitment. In turn, management commitment was a driver of employee

commitment to OHS. For example, at another enterprise, one informant

commented that “workers’ attitudes are good when the boss does the right thing”.

Use of OHS as a competitive advantage, enhancing market position

and public image

For each case study enterprise, OHS was identified as a key aspect of how they

market their business. Good performance in OHS was seen as a competitive

advantage. In the NSW case studies, being a signatory to the Memorandum of

Understanding provided an important marketing advantage as well as driving

specific actions required under the Memorandum. In addition, public image was

important. For example, the project investigated in one case study was a high

profile site at a time when construction industry OHS was receiving significant

media attention in the state as a result of recent fatalities in the construction

industry. This was reported to contribute to the high priority that OHS was given.


Commercial Construction

Project personnel

In each of the case study enterprises, the competence, knowledge and commitment

of site personnel made a significant difference to how seriously OHS was treated on

the site. One enterprise’s OHS manager reported that he was able to provide a more

effective resource to sites with committed and aware project personnel. This was

particularly important with respect to sub-contractor management. In each case

study, tendering documentation included OHS requirements. However, ensuring

that these were achieved in practice depended very much on the attention given at

a site level. The project manager of one case study project took great care when

selecting sub-contractors to choose ones which he believed had the ability and

commitment to meet the OHS requirements of the job, not just those which offered

the best price. The site supervisor provided clear advice, based on his experience

and knowledge of other projects, regarding which potential sub-contractors were

more likely to comply in practice with the enterprise’s OHS requirements.

Enforcement, both internal and external

Enforcement by OHS agencies was identified as an important influence on

management commitment and OHS performance. For example, access to common

law action by sub-contractors was cited by one enterprise as a driver of OHS.

Another case study enterprise used the number of notices and fines issued by the

OHS agency as a measure of their OHS performance. Equally, internal surveillance

of sub-contractors through activities such as auditing and monitoring was

identified as a key driver of sub-contractor OHS performance. This may have

negative consequences if OHS is treated as something that is done as a result of

external threats, rather than internal need.

Independent audits

In four of the case study enterprises, independent audits provided a critical

incentive to improve OHS management on site. In particular, participation in the

Safety Achiever Bonus Scheme (SABS) drove OHS performance and provided

important feedback on possible improvement strategies. Independent audits not

only provided an incentive to meet required standards, but also revealed

opportunities for improvement. One enterprise reported particular value in

inviting independent audit of its operations because it meant that the organisation

was scrutinised by people with ‘fresh eyes’.


Strategies

The following strategies describe the actions to manage OHS taken by the case

study enterprises as a result of the drivers.

Consultation and communication

Consultation and communication was identified by the case study enterprises as

critical to ensuring effective OHS management. Formal processes such as site safety

committees were nominated as significant, but ensuring that consultation and

communication was part of everyday management processes, such as development

of work procedures, was even more important. For example, one OHS manager

believed that workforce participation in OHS management is critical to success. He

was working to encourage management to change the current more top down

approach to one which recognises that “participation is the key”.

OHS management systems

In each of the case study enterprises, formal OHS management systems were in

place. Each enterprise emphasised, however, that the systems were only of value to

the extent of their implementation on site. For example, workshop participants at

one enterprise recognised limitations of systems which were very reliant on

documentation. They suggested that the mere presence of written procedures

constituting an OHS system was less useful as a measure of performance than the

effectiveness of the system.


Risk management and hazard control

Activities in the hazard control area were a primary focus in all case studies.

Activities of particular importance were inspections of varying frequency and

focuses, use of Job Safety Analyses and Standard Work Procedures and reporting of

hazards and incidents. For example, the site manager of one case study site used

the recurrence of identified hazards as a personal measure of how well OHS is

being managed on site by sub-contractors: “If we keep getting items coming up all

the time, that would tell us that things are not working and that we need to

monitor and go back to the subbies”.

Sub-contractor management

Sub-contractor management was cited as the most important strategy for

managing OHS on the case study sites. One enterprise identified that their biggest

problem was “getting sub-contractors to take safety seriously. Attitudes can be

improved if the main contractor leads by example, e.g. run toolbox meetings for

sub-contractors”. Another enterprise did not believe their sub-contractors were as

committed to OHS as necessary. This was explained as the result of lower levels of

OHS knowledge, budget pressure and communication difficulties, particularly

language barriers. They also reported that sub-contractors generally perceived that

OHS was the responsibility of the main contractor. Each case study enterprise had

implemented a number of strategies to address this. In particular, addressing OHS

from the beginning of the selection process, providing support in developing

effective OHS management and ongoing surveillance were cited as being of critical

importance across the case studies.

Training

Training was cited as an important strategy for effective OHS management. As well

as specific OHS training, case study enterprises stated that vocational training

makes a considerable difference to OHS standards. In this context, the general

dissatisfaction with the quality of vocational education and training in the

industry is concerning. Site personnel interviewed at the one case study site were

all critical of the standard of vocational training currently available in the

industry. This was related to concerns about changing levels of regulation

regarding training. For example, one health and safety representative at one of the

case study enterprises was particularly critical of the standard of training provided

to equipment operators. Many types of equipment do not require certificates of

competence to operate and operators have not received the level of training he

believes is required to operate high hazard equipment.


Auditing

Each case study enterprise undertook auditing, both internal and independent, to

review OHS management on sites. The scrutiny created by auditing, particularly for

sub-contractors, supported accountability and helped to identify improvement

opportunities.

Design

In each case study project, improving the design of the project was identified as an

important potential strategy for improving OHS. The site safety committee at one

case study site argued that most of those with control or influence over design had

little knowledge of how to build, much less knowledge about OHS in the

construction process. To improve this, they argued that the design process should

involve those who will build a structure, even if this is just to review drawings

before finalisation. More importantly, they argued that architects and engineers

should have more knowledge and competence in how to build safely and be held

accountable for this. However, only one enterprise specifically addressed OHS

issues in the design process, modified designs to control identified OHS risks.


Indicators currently in use

Each case study enterprise recognised the limitations of outcome data in measuring

OHS performance. Most of the case study enterprises consequently used a

combination of outcome and positive performance indicators to monitor OHS

performance.

The following outcome data was commonly collected at enterprise and project

level:

■ lost time injury frequency rate (LTIFR);

■ first aid injury rate and number;

■ notifiable dangerous occurrence rate;

■ fatality;

■ non injury incident; and

■ days lost.

The following positive performance indicators were collected at different case

study enterprises:

■ number of internal safety improvement notices;

■ percentage of people inducted;

■ number of inductions to industry standard;

■ number of inductions to site;

■ number of tool box meetings held;

■ number of method statements signed off;

■ number of accidents/near misses investigated;

■ internal safety audit score;

■ external safety audit score (if applicable);

■ frequency of site safety meetings;

■ number of OHS plans submitted;

■ number of OHS plans accepted;

■ number of OHS audits scheduled (internal and for sub-contractors);

■ number of OHS audits completed (internal and for sub-contractors);

■ number of nonconformance reports raised on site;

■ number of nonconformance reports outstanding to date;

■ number of OHS authority rectification notices; and

■ number of OHS authority fines.


Indicators they would like or plan to use

Each of the enterprises was in the process of reviewing their OHS performance

measurement system, some with specific changes which were being implemented.

The workshop conducted with some case study enterprises as part of the data

collection process also identified areas where participants believed additional OHS

positive performance indicators might be useful.

The following positive performance indicators were planned to be used or

suggested in the workshops in the different case study enterprises:

■ number of project safety plans in place;

■ number of system audits undertaken;

■ average branch audit score or individual project scores;

■ number of sub-contractor audits undertaken;

■ average sub-contractor score per project;

■ number of task observations undertaken;

■ percentage of project personnel observed performing a task correctly;

■ number of project initiatives entered into the system;

■ percentage of movement in attitude surveys;

■ number attending training;

■ number of reported plant incidents;

■ number of reported property incidents;

■ number of sub-contractor companies on site;

■ number of sub-contractor safety plans;

■ number sub-contractor plans audited;

■ average audit score;

■ number of sub-contractor plans appraised;

■ number of project safety committee meetings held;

■ number of management workplace inspections;

■ percentage of actions closed out;

■ number of safety committee inspections;

■ percentage of actions closed out;

■ number of attendees at specific OHS training courses;

■ number of weekly toolbox meetings held;

■ risk assessments revised, accepted and recorded;

■ number of clean up notices issued;

■ number of departures from safe work method statements;

■ number of issues identified on safety walks;

■ percentage of supervisor checklists not completed for week;

■ results of safety inspections, particularly continuing or repeated problems;

■ safety committee effectiveness;


■ number of management or OHS committee communication tours;

■ audit of minutes of meetings;

■ annual culture survey;

■ annual performance reviews;

■ monthly audit of participation in the development of job safety analyses (JSA) as

recorded on each JSA;

■ awareness of safe systems of work by employees and sub-contractors at toolbox

meetings;

■ monitoring the involvement of the safety committee and site safety committee

in the review of JSAs;

■ audit of inspection reports to check participants;

■ checking actual work performance against referees’ reports, interview results,

tender evaluation;

■ audit of accident investigation reports against hazard control reports;

■ audit of OHS meetings to determine that problems are dealt with;

■ audit of actual state of plant and equipment against statutory requirements -

monthly audits and random checks; and

■ OHS performance of sub-contractors at tender evaluation stage and at

completion of work.

As well as the issues included in the above list, other areas suggested by the case

study enterprises for the development of positive performance indicators were:

■ planning and design;

■ reporting and monitoring;

■ education and training;

■ communication; and

■ attitudes to OHS.

Issues of significance

The case studies in this industry sector revealed a number of issues which may have

significant impact on OHS performance and the capacity for performance


Dissatisfaction with aspects of vocational education and training

in the industry

Each of the case study enterprises expressed dissatisfaction with the standard of

vocational training in the industry. For example, concern was common about the

standard of training provided to equipment operators, which was reported to be

inadequate for operating high hazard equipment on a construction site.


Importance of sub-contractor management approaches

Each case study enterprise stressed that the effectiveness of sub-contractor

management was the main determinant of OHS performance. Some site personnel

reported that they went to considerable lengths to reduce the likelihood that sub-

contractors with inadequate OHS management would be engaged on their project.

Fatalism about accidents

While personnel in each case study enterprise expressed personal commitment to

improving OHS performance, most of those interviewed expressed varying degrees

of fatalism. They reported a belief that it would be impossible to prevent all

accidents in the industry. For example, one interview participant stated that “you

can’t get all injuries to go”. The aim for health and safety management developed

at one workshop cited “no accidents” as a target with the qualification that this

referred to serious accidents, because minor accidents are “always expected”.

Concern about use of OHS as an industrial lever

To greater or lesser extent, personnel in most of the case study enterprises

expressed concern about the use of OHS as an industrial tool.

Universal recognition of the lack of reliability of outcome data

Each case study enterprise had previously identified that outcome data was of

limited validity and was actively using or seeking positive performance indicators

to help them improve their OHS management. For example, one enterprise’s OHS

manager reported that accident data is of limited usefulness in managing OHS,

because it is negative and also does not reveal the potential severity of accidents.

At a site level, accident data is difficult to collect because many site workers are

only on site for a short period and therefore it is difficult to collect accurate data.

In another case study enterprise, neither the project manager nor the state OHS

manager believed that the accident data they collected was either statistically

meaningful nor reflective of OHS performance of the site. This means that the

current study will be able to provide timely support to the industry, encouraging

other companies to also improve their data collection and analysis.


Design

Each case study enterprise identified that the design of the building has

considerable influence on OHS performance. At several case study sites, personnel

identified that improving the education of design professionals (i.e. architects and

engineers) to include OHS would have major benefits for OHS in the industry. In

this context, it is revealing that only one case study enterprise explicitly reviewed

the project’s design for OHS consequences.

Conclusion

Each of the commercial case study enterprises had identified limitations with

traditional OHS performance measurement and was seeking to improve their

approach. The enterprises were using a variety of indicators which focused on

areas of importance for their OHS management systems. This project will add value

to their work by providing useful guidance to other areas in which positive

performance indicators may be useful and by supporting greater industry

coordination in positive performance measurement.



Four case studies were conducted of companies operating in the civil construction

sector of the industry:

■ three construction sites of Adelaide Civil Pty Ltd [ADCIV], a locally owned, South

Australian construction company directly employing about 120 people;

■ the Western Australian division of Theiss Contractors Pty Limited directly

employing 250 workers;

■ the Western Australian division of Consolidated Constructions directly

employing 115 workers; and

■ a case study of one site where Vicroads, the Victorian government civil

construction authority, was the principal and the Victorian division of John

Holland was the contractor with 40 employees on site.


The following key drivers were identified in the case study enterprises:

The commitment of senior management and other key personnel

Strong personal commitment to OHS by senior management and other key

personnel was identified as a key driver for OHS in each of the case study

enterprises. The competence, experience, personal commitment and preparedness

to follow through when displayed by the project managers and other senior

managers played a critical role in the effectiveness of on-site OHS management. As

one person commented, “It starts at the top - management setting out proper rules

and so on at the start of the job”.

Use of OHS as a competitive advantage, enhancing market position and

public image, and contributing to company viability

For some enterprises the OHS record was regarded as an important aspect of their

competitive position. A good record in safety management was known to support

tenders, particularly for government-funded work.

All enterprises reported that being seen as a safe employer, concerned for those

who work on their sites, and being seen as a socially responsible employer, was

important for their public image and was therefore a key driver for attention being

paid to OHS.

Civil Construction


Enforcement, both internal and external

Enforcement by OHS agencies was regarded as an important driver for some

enterprises. This ranged from seeking to comply with legislation (“we want to avoid

litigation and costs associated with incidents”) being considered to have played a

role in OHS improvement programs in others (“we have used our inspector to help

us improve our OHS processes”).

The case study enterprises asserted that a key driver for OHS in many small sub-

contracting companies was the surveillance of the contractor and the associated

likelihood of detection. In addition, contact with and support from the

contractor’s often more experienced and competent supervisors provided some

smaller sub-contractors with a form of on-the-job training in OHS management.

This one-on-one approach was considered an effective way to spread the message

about the importance of OHS and how to incorporate it into daily activities.

The unpleasant experience of past incidents and a desire to

prevent potential incidents

Site supervisors and the OHS coordinator at one enterprise cited a serious incident

in the early days of the enterprise that had a significant impact on the way

members of the enterprise at all levels viewed health and safety and the incident

was perceived as a driver of the health and safety program.

Respect for others, both as people and as skilled individuals

In one enterprise, workers identified self-protection, respect for others and the

desire to work in a happy crew as a key driver of OHS from their perspective. They

indicated that open communication at all levels in the enterprise showed that they

were respected and they felt they were provided with opportunities to participate

in decision-making about OHS, which they appreciated.


Strategies

The following strategies describe the actions to manage OHS taken by the case

study enterprises as a result of the drivers.

Consultation, communication and participation

Developing genuinely interactive and participatory means of communicating and

engaging everyone in managing OHS was regarded as a key strategy in each of the

case study enterprises. “Health and safety has got to be part of everyone’s work.

It’s not just the bosses or just the workers”, as one site supervisor said. In some

enterprises, effective participation and consultation were encouraged through the

OHS committee and through formal toolbox meetings and team briefings which

provide opportunity for problem solving. Informal, daily communication on site

was regarded as critical to supporting OHS and as the most effective way to

communicate with the workforce about OHS because it was frequent and low key -

just part of normal daily conversation. As one site supervisor said, “just about

every time I meet with the guys on site we talk about some health and safety

matter or other, it’s always up front”. Other forms of communication might be

written, such as the OHS bulletins (‘Safety Alerts’ in one enterprise) or regular

information sheets on pertinent OHS issues that are distributed to the people on

work sites.

In most enterprises a collaborative approach was used to develop detailed OHS

policies and procedures. This was done by the management and workforce working

together on the OHS committee. This type of collaboration works when employee

members of the committee are given the opportunity to talk through the issues

with the people they represent outside of the meetings.

Some enterprises used a system of site-based OHS committees to guide the

application of their policies and procedures at site level by the OHS committee

monitoring and reviewing the use of the site safety plan and monitoring hazard

control actions. This was considered very effective, particularly when the project

manager attends site OHS committee meetings as well as company level OHS

meetings. This way site-based problems could be brought to the attention of senior

management, and company level issues could be brought back to the site. OHS

committee meetings in most case study enterprises were held regularly

(monthly/bi-monthly) and received feedback about current issues from the sites.


OHS management systems

The translation of systems and infrastructure provided by the enterprise into safe

work practices and safe working environments was a theme at each of the civil

case studies, and they each demonstrated different activities aimed at achieving

this. These ranged from site-based to enterprise level activities. At all case study

enterprises, OHS was a regular agenda item for executive meetings and was a

standard item in Board reports, although the nature and complexity of reports

varied considerably. OHS responsibilities and accountabilities were included in

duty statements and OHS was included in management and supervisor

performance reviews. None of the case study enterprises dealt with OHS costs

through a specific budget allocation for OHS, rather they said, “If it needs doing

for health and safety reasons, then we just do it”.

Using planning processes to ensure that risks and hazards were understood and

eliminated or controlled before work on that stage, area or task begins was a

strategy employed by each case study enterprise. In one enterprise, the principal’s

OHS coordinator reviewed the specific OHS management plan for each project

which was drawn up by the contractor. The plan may have been generic, but

specific procedures have been developed to meet particular requirements of the

project. The relevance of this documentation and the extent to which people on

site were able to implement it was regarded as a key marker of good OHS

performance. At another enterprise, a template was used for a project safety

management plan and project safety procedures which could be adapted to meet

the needs of different projects, forming a project safety management plan. The

template could include a number of specific procedures, e.g. working at heights,

toolbox meetings, and workplace hazard inspections. Systematic preventive

maintenance of plant and equipment was regarded as a critical component of

planning at each case study enterprise.

At one case study enterprise, site supervisors were supplied with laptop computers

to enhance reporting of meetings and hazards. With this action, the natural

reluctance to handwrite notes was overcome and poor handwriting and spelling

were not revealed.

Each case study enterprise expressed the view that industry benchmarking was

effective as a learning activity to help identify better ways to identify and control

hazards, manage OHS and assess their own performance.

Risk management and hazard control

Collaboration between management and the workforce was regarded as critical in

identifying major hazards at all of the case study enterprises. This was manifest in

most enterprises principally as a very clear focus on seeking to control hazards at


their source. Informal approaches to identifying hazards were encouraged on a ‘see

and fix’ basis, with hazards which could not be rectified immediately being

reported to the site supervisor for rectification. This was coupled with a structured

inspection regime. Weekly safety walks were undertaken by project personnel on a

roster basis, although with particularly risky work processes, safety walks occurred

daily.

In one enterprise there was a formally planned and collaborative approach to

identifying hazards (including specific checklists for major hazards, e.g. traffic

management), assessment of risk and control measures. In another enterprise,

although the hazard management was very collaborative, there was little formal

system imposed on it. Instead there was reliance on supervisors and workers to

reassess site conditions each day and throughout the day based on changes in soil

types or the weather as they occurred. The whole crew operated with vigilance,

using their combined skills, knowledge and experience in order to keep the

worksite safe. As one site supervisor said, “We respect each other’s skills and

knowledge and that lets us have confidence in each other. We know we all have

each other’s safety in mind so we can work well together as a crew”. No checklists

were used, although supervisors kept a record of the meetings in order that

changes to the job could be justified.

The work activity briefing was a primary tool for collaborative hazard assessment

in two enterprises. Held on a weekly basis or whenever there was a change in work

activity, the briefing required the supervisor and workers involved in doing the

work, to identify potential hazards and how they would control them.

While personal protective equipment (PPE) was regarded as an important part of

risk control in each of the case study enterprises, it was clearly seen as a measure

of last resort and the comprehensive hazard identification, risk assessment and

control procedures contained in the site safety plans of the enterprises were

explicitly based on the hierarchy of control.


Job safety analyses (JSAs) were an important part of hazard management and these

were developed collaboratively, including with contractors in some instances.

Mostly JSAs were formally prepared and written down. One case study enterprise

kept such paperwork to a bare minimum in recognition of the fact that it was not

possible to have JSAs to cover every conceivable contingency. They also recognised

that in reality few people on site would refer to them.

Some case study enterprises were overt in maintaining an active and friendly

relationship with inspectors and other staff of the OHS agencies. These

organisations were regarded as important sources of reliable information that

could help to improve OHS performance.


Sub-contractors were not always highly regarded on site. In one enterprise, sub-

contractors were described as “mongrels” by some of the plant operators. In most

case study enterprises, contractors who behaved badly on site, or who

demonstrated repeated OHS or quality non-conformances, were removed from site.

One enterprise avoided problems with sub-contractors by adopting a policy of

direct employment rather than contracting out work. This was regarded as a sure

way of maintaining more effective control over OHS. Another enterprise employed

an on-site works manager whose specific role was to monitor the work undertaken

by contractors, in an open and supportive way.

Some of the case study enterprises specified formal requirements for contractors

with respect to OHS management, and then audited their performance over the

course of projects. One enterprise made sub-contractors’ periodic payments reliant

on the outcomes of OHS audits. Payments could be withheld, especially in relation

to supply and install contracts, dependent on the nature of the non-compliance.

Other enterprises considered that such a move might have industrial relations

implications and, although they liked the idea in theory, could not see it being put

into practice. There was a view that using money as a control mechanism was not

the best way of managing sub-contractors - “It’s more important to have subbies

involved in the system - on the OHS Committee, in toolbox meetings.”

Training

Having competent, trained and experienced people on the job and in management

roles was seen as the first demand that needed to be met if health and safety were

to be accorded proper priority in each of the case study enterprises.

Effective briefing and training of supervisors, leading hands and team leaders

(including contractors and sub-contractors) before the start of a project was

regarded as critical to good OHS performance. This could be very difficult when the


project lead-time was short. However, it was regarded as imperative in each of the

case study enterprises that supervisors were trained and their role development

managed so they were able to take an active role in promoting and managing OHS.

Induction training of workers (including contractors and sub-contractors) for the

site and for their work activity was regarded as very important, but in most case

study enterprises induction training was not always completed before a project

commenced. In some enterprises, training was entirely provided on-the-job and

this was the preferred mode of delivery.

Auditing and inspection

Most case study enterprises audited their OHS systems in one way or another.

Sometimes this was formal, at other times informal. Independent audit (cross-

auditing by project managers in the same company but from different sites) and

external audits (by OHS agencies or consultants) were used to help identify

deficiencies. Whether formal or informal, each case study enterprise reported a

systematic approach to auditing and inspections, both external and self-

assessment. Self-assessment audits were invariably conducted by management in

collaboration with the workforce.

It was common to have documented, detailed self-audits conducted on a weekly or

fortnightly basis with results and corrective actions being reported to the project

manager, OHS coordinator or other senior person, who signs off on the audit. One

enterprise used the audit process, which was part of the OHS management system,

to feed information back into the system and correct or improve the system. The

important thing was that deficiencies identified through the audit process were

actioned. In another enterprise, outcomes from audits could be challenged. A

follow-up procedure was in place to check the rigour of audit findings as well as

control actions.

Documented self-audits were a feature of the requirement of sub-contractors in

some of the case study enterprises.

One case study enterprise did not use formal audit systems that relied on

checklists, but conducted intensive, informal audits of site activities. These were

regarded as more efficient and flexible as they were adapted to each site and

changing site conditions. They were conducted by the OHS coordinator as an in-

house ‘expert’ but were also a feature of the daily activity of site supervisors and

plant operators. Visual inspections were carried out on a daily and weekly basis

and during the day when conditions changed.



Each case study enterprise acknowledged that there were limitations in using

outcome measures to assess OHS performance. Consequently, most enterprises

used a combination of outcome measures and positive performance indicators to

monitor their OHS performance, although one company used only outcome

measures.


level:


■ first aid injury rate;

■ medical treatment injury rate;

■ cost of compensable injuries;

■ recurrence of incidents;

■ lost time injuries to contractor employees/sub-contractors;

■ medical time injuries to contractor employees/sub-contractors; and

■ non-injury incidents (near-misses) investigated for both contractor employees

and sub-contractors.

The following positive performance indicators were collected at different case

study enterprises:

■ number of JSAs conducted;

■ number of hazard inspections conducted;

■ number of tool box talks conducted;

■ number of OHS inductions conducted;

■ number of OHS meetings completed;

■ number of OHS training exercises held;

■ number of OHS audits conducted;

■ number of OHS bulletins issued;

■ number of OHS non-compliance reports issued;

■ whether OHS procedures for critical works have been submitted by sub-

contractors (rated either yes or no);

■ whether there is evidence that surveillance of sub-contractors is carried out

(rated either yes or no);

■ the frequency of on-site inspections;

■ the time taken to fix problems in accordance with the allocated timeframe;

■ general attitude to safety on site (subjectively assessed by the OHS coordinator);

■ quality of records and documents related to OHS (subjectively assessed by the

OHS coordinator);

■ commitment to safety overall (subjectively assessed by the OHS coordinator);


■ the consistency of project managers in relation to OHS as a measure of the

quality of OHS management in contractors (used informally and subjectively

assessed by the OHS coordinator);

■ workers’ rating of supervisors/project management’s commitment to OHS

■ percentage of injuries incurred for major hazards;

■ percentage of sub-standard conditions identified and corrected as a result of

safety audits;

■ results of independent (by people in the same company but from different sites)

and external audits. Measured as number, regularity, quality, outcomes and

action taken to resolve non-conformances;

■ time taken to get hazards under control once they have been identified;

■ assessment of the availability and standard of PPE; and

■ number of hazard reports and feedback from toolbox meetings.


The workshop conducted with some case study enterprises as part of the data

collection process identified areas where participants believed positive

performance indicators might help them to improve their performance. Other

potential positive performance indicators were identified in the data collection

process.

The following positive performance indicators are planned to be used or were

suggested in the different case study enterprises:

■ return to work performance - to assess the effectiveness of rehabilitation;

■ content and, method of holding, chairing or presenting tool box meetings;

■ frequency and duration of tool box meetings;

■ participation level in tool box meetings;

■ worker assessment of supervisor/project management commitment to OHS (but

needs to be designed so as to be confident that responses are honest);

■ commitment to safety - assessed subjectively by the project manager or the

safety manager;

■ assessment of the effectiveness of JSAs on site through audit of diary entries and

discussions with site supervisors and workers;

■ assessment of effectiveness of on-site induction training (on basis of time taken

to become a safe, independent worker);

■ availability of equipment necessary to perform the job safely (assessed by

audit/worker feedback);

■ maintenance of equipment (audit of maintenance records);

■ an attitude shift amongst workers and clients measured by questionnaires or

interviews. (Could be used at an enterprise and industry level.);


■ workplace survey to determine levels of respect and a happy working

environment. The survey would cover communication, consultation,

participation in decision-making, and good human relations. (Could be used at an

enterprise and industry level.);

■ adherence to site rules - the number of punitive measures instigated on the job

such as verbal alerts/warnings, infringement notices through to removal from site;

■ number of job safety analyses completed and documented;

■ standard of housekeeping;

■ standard and availability of facilities and equipment;

■ amount of feedback from the ground up on OHS matters;

■ reaction time to deal with issues that are raised;

■ independent feedback e.g. from OHS agencies;

■ reduction in the number of corrective actions required per inspection; and

■ number of repeat problems occurring.



significant impact on OHS performance and the capacity for performance


Industry cohesion

Over recent years, as increasing quantities of work have been contracted out, work

with OHS risks have tended to be shifted to contractors. Not all contractors have

included the costs of covering these risks in contract bids. This supports price

undercutting in an attempt to win tenders, which can increase the pressure to take

short-cuts with safety. Stronger industry cohesion around improving OHS could be

an important driver of further improvement throughout the industry by reducing

the temptation to cut safety as a way to increase margins.

A good OHS management record was regarded as an important competitive

advantage for government-funded work but of less importance in privately-funded

work. Stronger industry cohesion around the uptake and improvement of OHS

would help the industry as a whole by reducing the temptation to cut safety as a

way to increase margins. Industry networks and benchmarking could assist this to

happen. The adoption of appropriate positive performance indicators throughout

the industry would support increased industry cohesion by redefining ‘good OHS

performance’ through process rather than through traditional outcome indicators.


Importance of managing contractor OHS

Each of the case study enterprises emphasised the importance of managing sub-

contractors’ OHS performance. This was considered to be particularly true for

smaller contractors where the OHS was more likely to be poorly managed and less

well understood. Some enterprises had official or unofficial ‘blacklists’ of

contractors who are known to be ‘cowboys’. Such lists were operated at site level

and/or at company level, and were an effective way of controlling unsatisfactory

contractors. The fact that the industry needs to compete on cost was identified as

a major contributor to such contractors remaining in the industry. Balancing the

need to meet safety requirements with budgetary constraints and short timelines

could at times compromise the attention which was paid to the safety performance

of contractors.

Recognition of the lack of reliability of outcome data

Each of the case study enterprises acknowledged that reliance on basic accident

data was of limited value to the management of OHS. One OHS coordinator

described it as “a barrier to focussing on the root causes of accidents”. (However, it

should be noted that detailed analysis of injury data, looking at the factors that

contributed to the incident occurring, can indicate possible causes of the incident.)

Formal systems vs informal systems

Although in this sector there was strong reliance on written systems for managing

OHS, there was a clear need for these systems to be dynamic enough to maintain

relevance in actually getting the work done, than might be the case in a static

workplace such as a manufacturing facility. Systems need to be able to cope with

frequently changing conditions on sites and, rather than take the view that

‘accidents will happen anyway’, there should be recognition of the need for people

to have the skills to cope with the ambiguities they face in the workplace.


Concerns about vocational education and training in the industry

Training was regarded as an important strategy. However, there were serious

criticisms of the quality of industry training with respect to OHS. The issues

included the content of courses and concerns that people were not trained to cope

with real life environments. For example, as one site supervisor put it, “Some guys

I’ve hired come along with a certificate of competence but they’ve never worked

on site before. They might know how to operate the equipment, but they don’t

understand about working around pedestrians and near other working equipment.

They are a danger to themselves and others because they think they know what

they’re doing, but they don’t really”.

Design

The design of the project makes a significant difference to the safety of the

construction process for the contractor. A safer design would create a safer

construction process. To help support this, it would be far better to have those

who will actually build the project involved in the design process early enough to

influence the design. However, time pressures mean that the opportunity to

change things is not always available. Changing this approach, by building the

opportunity to make changes into the project time lines, would have significant

positive impact on the contractor’s ability to manage OHS.

Consistent application of legislation

The case study enterprises argued that all contractors should face the same risk of

detection and enforcement of breaches of OHS law. Otherwise, some enterprises

might be penalised for taking OHS seriously in comparison to their competitors.

OHS in board reports and company reports

Some companies routinely report OHS performance to their Board. Reports using

positive performance indicators would provide a new focus for OHS management

at this senior level. Including positive performance indicators in public company

annual reports would also be a powerful way to refocus the type of attention that

OHS gets in the industry more generally.

Working hours and OHS

Workers were consistent in their belief that fair and appropriate pay rates and

reasonable working hours (that is, no excessive overtime) were fundamental to site

health and safety. It is important to recognise that issues that sometimes appear to

be in the realm of ‘industrial relations’ impact on health and safety and should be

considered at enterprise and industry level during wage negotiations.


Conclusion

The enterprises in the civil sector were very different to the other sectors in the

maturity of their programs. Statistical reports on outcome measures were still

regarded as important and useful. There was concern that at this stage the industry

as a whole relies on outcome measures. However, some people in the enterprises

had difficulty seeing the limitations of outcome measures of performance as their

clients demand them as do OHS agencies and insurers. Some civil enterprises could

see value in positive performance indicators. The positive performance indicators

chosen for the industry need to reflect the needs of ‘new starters in OHS’ so that

they are encouraged to continue along the path and are led by their indicators of

performance. This means that there will need to be a range of indicators available

that will suit the needs of construction enterprises at different stages of OHS

development.



Three cases were studied of companies operating in the heavy engineering sector of

the construction industry. These companies were:

■ Clough Engineering Limited (WA Division) - the case study was conducted at a site

where large scale expansion of processing and refining capacity was under

construction. The company has diverse international engineering and

construction interests. It employs 5000 people in total. The average number of

workers on the case study site was 125. The company directly employs the

workforce;

■ Transfield Construction - NSW - the case study was conducted on a joint venture

project to design and operate a wastewater treatment works in New South

Wales. Transfield is a large company with projects within Australia and overseas.

Thirty-five workers were employed on the project at the time the study was

undertaken; and

■ Baulderstone Hornibrook Engineering Pty Ltd, based in South Australia,

specialises in heavy engineering projects such as petro-chemical plants. The case

study involved the end stages of construction of a series of filtration plants.

When the study was undertaken, employee numbers had fallen from around 150

to 20. The company prefers in the main to directly employ project workers.



enterprises:

Competitive advantage

In the heavy engineering case study enterprises, respondents at all levels

acknowledged that OHS is increasingly becoming part of the business of winning

contracts - a demonstrable record of good OHS performance is necessary for

successful marketing and securing new contracts.

Managerial capabilities and commitment

Attitude, approach and capabilities of management were key drivers of OHS in the

case study enterprises - “[It] all starts with the management - managers have to be

proactive, walk the talk”. The features that were identified in the case study

enterprises as indicators of management commitment were: a management team


Heavy Engineering Construction

dedicated to the cause - a team willing to remedy identified hazards, allocate

resources for OHS, provide the time needed to resource OHS and be accessible to

the workforce - (“you get heard and can sort out problems”). A team able to absorb

criticism and learn from examples set by others was a clear driver of OHS.

Along with the active demonstration of a proactive approach to OHS, the habits of

the enterprise - “Even at induction we are given a hazard checklist and report

sheet. The trouble that’s been taken shows they care” - provide evidence of a

commitment to good health and safety practices.

To demonstrate management commitment to OHS and to also raise knowledge and

awareness of OHS at executive management levels, senior executives in one case

study enterprise were required to attend part of a site OHS system audit.

Another important aspect of commitment was the active involvement of front line

managers in OHS systems implementation and communication. Active safety

advisors - demonstrating the process on site, picking up on poor behaviour,

communicating effectively - were also found to impact positively on safety

performance in the case study enterprises.

OHS obligations

Recognition of obligations to employees, i.e. the right of people “to go home in one

piece”, was identified as a driving force for OHS in the heavy engineering case

study enterprises. This driver, along with good OHS practices seen as a competitive

advantage, are consistent with acknowledged broader societal expectations that

people will not be harmed through going to work. Interestingly, respondents in the

case study enterprises also reported similar motivating factors amongst the

workforce, with the desire to secure continuity of work along with a desire for self

preservation both being important factors.

Auditing

Auditing was undertaken in each of the case study enterprises, both internally and

independently. In one case study enterprise, auditing was seen as an opportunity

to evaluate OHS activity in detail, as well as to assess the overall performance of a

division. Performing well on an audit was seen as a driver of continuing good OHS

performance. For example, consistently good internal and independent audit

results and achieving targets acted as positive reinforcement and motivation. One

case study enterprise regarded independent audits as useful, as they found them an

important way to assess their OHS performance and also as an opportunity to learn

new ways of approaching OHS problems.


Cost savings

Reducing costs associated with poor safety, such as lost time, insurance premiums

and rehabilitation - ‘the hidden costs associated with workplace injury and illness’ -

was also reported as a driving factor for effort spent on OHS in the heavy

engineering case study enterprises.

Compliance with legislation

Compliance with legislative and regulatory requirements was identified by case

study enterprises as a driver of OHS. In one enterprise, the threat of industrial

action over health and safety issues was also a driver.

Site drivers

Key drivers at site level can be summarised as the desire to get the job done on

time, on budget, without problems. The OHS contribution to this was further

driven by:

■ creating a high OHS profile right the way through, as typified by the comment

“...there’s no point in paying lip service, it’s here to stay and we must be

prepared to work this way.”;

■ the presence of full time safety personnel on site;

■ induction, which set OHS as a priority; and

■ on one project, a cross-site OHS observation program focused additional

external attention on OHS.

Strategies

Enterprises relied on a range of strategies to help manage OHS. The following

strategies describe the actions to manage OHS taken by the case study enterprises

as a result of the drivers.

Design and planning

In the heavy engineering case study enterprises, input into construction design, all

planning stages (from overall construction to work activities) and scheduling was

seen as critical to ensuring that OHS is actively managed from the outset. This went

beyond hazard and risk identification to ensuring that problems were designed out

of construction, operation and maintenance stages in so far as was possible or

otherwise controlled. It also encompassed site set up and scheduling of activities to

facilitate safety in construction, operation and maintenance. In addition, having

specific safety management plans in place and adhered to from the outset of

construction was viewed as an important means of achieving effective OHS

performance.


Including OHS specifications in calls for tender and in the contractor and sub-

contractor (and employee) selection process was also rated as a useful strategy by

the case study enterprises to assist with the management of OHS on site. One case

study enterprise felt that industry-wide changes were needed regarding the way

work was initiated and designed and that changes in the education and skill of

architects, engineers and other designers of built environments would also need to

take place regarding safe design.

OHS management system

All of the case study enterprises had an OHS management system in place. In one

case study enterprise the OHS management system was in a continuous process of

review and was updated as required. All enterprises emphasised the importance of

the practical application of the OHS management system rather than just the

presence of written procedures. This was demonstrated in one enterprise, which

placed a high value on workers who had problem solving skills.

Hazard management

Hazards at each project were identified via collaboration between management

and workers through conducting risk assessments, completing job safety analyses

(JSAs) and safe operating procedures (SOPs), incident reports and, in some

instances, through pre-start planning meetings. One case study enterprise reported

conducting inspections (including of equipment and machinery) regularly during

the project, especially at critical stages of construction. Another case study

enterprise, although they had SOPs in place, questioned the value of written SOPs,

stating that instead they placed a high value on people who could use their

experience and knowledge to solve problems.


Management of sub-contractors was an integral aspect of effective management of

OHS in the case study enterprises that employed sub-contractors. In one case study

enterprise, sub-contractor management was initially considered at the tender

evaluation stage (through evaluating OHS capabilities and management systems)

and then throughout the life of the project by monitoring and supervising the sub-

contractors’ OHS performance. Sub-contractors in this enterprise were treated as if

they were company employees and were also included in all OHS management

activities. In another case study enterprise, if particular sub-contractors could not

demonstrate adherence to the required OHS practices, they were not used.


Workforce capability, training and education

Attitude, approach and capabilities of the workforce, i.e. a workforce that is,

“competent, capable, will help identify problems, [and] work safely”, ensuring that

the right people are in place was identified by the case study enterprises as a

critical strategy for effective OHS management.

Hand in hand with management and workforce capabilities went a sound selection

process “so you’re getting capable people to work with”. Also identified as

important factors in building a safe working environment were supporting training

and continuing education processes, which needed to be practical and fit for

purpose.

Case study enterprises regarded induction training of workers to the site as a

fundamental requirement and all enterprises provided induction training to their

workers.

Communication and participation

Effective communication, especially where activities interfaced, was another key

strategy in successfully managing OHS identified by the case study enterprises. This

facilitated teamwork and involved communications at individual and group levels

throughout the project. It enabled the uptake of workforce suggestions by

management and the reciprocal uptake of management systems by the workforce

with no “resentment factors” present: “we’re all working to the same end, all there

to be spoken to - we’re a team”.

A key aspect of participation was the development a ‘culture’ of safety and of

reporting incidents or potential incidents, with everyone understanding that OHS

was needed and had to be fundamental to the way work was done: “no shonkies - if

the job’s unsafe no-one will do it”.

Other strategies

Other key strategies used to achieve workplace health and safety included:

• the provision and maintenance of an appropriate standard and availability of

equipment and facilities for the workforce to use;

• consistent, practical systems and procedures that acted as vehicles for

improving OHS - for example, providing coaching through the disciplinary

procedure;

• good housekeeping standards; and

• appropriate auditing, feedback and follow up of site issues, behaviours, plans

and systems.


One enterprise, with excellent outcomes from its deployment of the OHS

management system at site level, commented on the cultural shift that had taken

place within the last decade. Previously, OHS consciousness was not part of the

industry. Management viewed OHS as a cost. The workforce viewed people who

were safety conscious as “soft”. Respondents reported this shift as being in part

due to the enterprise’s efforts - one respondent, who has spent some years working

for other enterprises, stated “this is as good as I’ve seen it”. Workforce respondents

commented that systematised and enforced OHS requirements had removed

negative peer pressure.

The shift is also attributed to increasing industry awareness, with employees at all

levels bringing increased safety consciousness with them from previous

experiences.


The enterprises all had systems that incorporated the majority of the preliminary

positive performance indicators that were the subject of the case study research.

These indicators were in the main assessed through detailed audit procedures or

were present in the enterprises’ systems as strategies for managing OHS

performance.


level:

■ number of first aid treatments

■ medical treatment frequency rate;


■ average lost time rate;

■ compensable injury rate;

■ cost of compensable injuries;

■ number of improvement/prohibition notices;

■ number of injuries per body part; and

■ number of injured persons, including contractors.

Each of the case study enterprises was actively using a range of positive indicators.

Some were numerical indicators, others non-numerical. The following positive

performance indicators were collected at different case study enterprises:

■ number of structured visits to site by corporate directors;

■ individual performance assessment and ratings;

■ number of workers who have completed induction training;

■ number of supervisors who have received OHS training;

■ number of OHS committee/toolbox/team meetings attended by management;

■ number of employees wanting to be part of committees and other participatory


forums - taken as an indication of the effectiveness of the OHS program;

■ benchmarking - internal and external;

■ inclusion of OHS in tender specifications;

■ sites develop and implement an OHS improvement plan - this indicator is being

tracked to ensure that plans are developed and implemented on all sites/

projects;

■ number of hazards controlled (“Construction is constantly changing so we need

to constantly measure this”);

■ data from structured daily site observations;

■ planned observations of high risk activities - percentage of compliance;

■ monitoring local hazards e.g. noise and dust levels;

■ ratings from regular monitoring, assessment and internal auditing of safety

systems (conducted fortnightly and inclusive of sub-contractors) and

independent auditing were seen as most useful. They provide a “different

perspective, different ways of looking at things”;

■ level of improvement over time in audit ratings;

■ number of corrective actions;

■ incident reporting frequency rate used as a positive indicator - where the

potential for accident or injury is reported, opportunities to improve physical or

behavioural safety increase;

■ attitude surveys;

■ number of equipment failures; and

■ level of industrial disputation related to OHS issues.


Case study enterprises identified a range of alternative indicators they believed

could track relevant areas of OHS. These indicators also reflect a mixture of

qualitative and quantitative assessment. The following positive performance

indicators were planned to be used or were suggested in the workshops in the

different case study enterprises:

■ assessment of OHS content of management meetings with a report going to

executive management to maintain a enterprise focus on OHS;

■ annual workforce (employees and sub-contractors) culture survey which

includes OHS;

■ pre-placement health assessments;


■ level of communication by employees of their needs;

■ active participation and feedback from employees in toolbox/pre-start

meetings etc;

■ comparison of training provided against a benchmark or percentage e.g. 70%

trained in welding;

■ demonstrated use of appropriate work practices and preventative procedures;

■ documented observations of compliance with housekeeping standards;

■ number of repetitive or re-occurring complaints/problems;

■ number of notices, actions and non-conformances closed out against number

open;

■ time taken to fix problems in accordance with allocated timeframes;

■ assessment of the time taken to remedy issues raised;

■ using feedback from “weekly look ahead” meetings to identify risks and hazards;

and

■ daily hazard reports.



a significant impact on OHS performance improvement in the sector.

Applying corporate systems effectively at site level

A key issue was ensuring that systems and strategies emanating from the corporate

level were effective in their implementation at project and site level, thus ensuring

that site OHS needs were appropriately addressed and managed.

Design and constructability

Similarly, a major concern was the need for design to include constructability,

operability and maintainability as a means of reducing injury and illness. One case

study enterprise perceived this as a job that is “bigger than us” - in other words,

industry-wide changes in the way work is initiated and designed are required.

Education and training

A related requirement is for change in the education and development of

architects and design engineers to ensure that OHS considerations form part of the

design task and solutions. Concern with the effects of changes to industry

standards and the nature of industry training extended to training provided to the

workforce.


Case study enterprises expressed the view that changes in competency

requirements as well as changes to the practical hands-on nature of former

training schemes have left individuals and their work mates exposed to

unnecessary risk. For example, it was possible to obtain an advanced rigging

certificate in ten days. Previously, people underwent a staged and mentored on-

the-job program that provided practical skills along with the knowledge to do the

job competently and safely. The current training program required significant

catch up once people had the qualification, to equip them with a similar level of

capability to those who qualified under the previous system. Increased flexibility

had been obtained at the expense of safety.

Conclusion

Notwithstanding the identified limitations, the elements reflected in the

preliminary positive performance indicators were accepted as contributing to the

effective management of OHS. Each of the case study enterprises recognised

shortcomings in a reliance on outcome measures and had moved to varying

degrees to initiate and monitor OHS processes or positive performance. The

development of this project should continue to be informed by, and contribute to,

that effort.



Four case studies were conducted of companies operating in the domestic housing

sector of the industry:

■ Atrium Homes, a Western Australian private company that employs around 30

people and 200 sub-contractors;

■ the South Australian division of AV Jennings Homes Limited, a national company

that employs around 80 staff and 100 sub-contractors;

■ Clarendon Homes, a private company operating primarily in New South Wales

that employs around 300 people and has a network of sub-contractors and

suppliers; and

■ Stonehenge Homes, a Victorian private company that employs around 30 people.

All labour and tradespeople on sites are sub-contractors and their employees.



enterprises:

External enforcement

Enforcement by OHS agencies was identified as an important influence on

management of OHS in all case study enterprises. For enforcement to be effective,

it was felt that all builders and sub-contractors should face equal likelihood of

action and that it must relate to the specific circumstances of housing with advice

on how to improve. It was also considered that enforcement should be directed

where responsibility lies, including the owners of the houses.

Public image

All case study enterprises were concerned with public image in relationship to OHS.

It was perceived as important to be seen to be “doing the right thing”, as well as

being reputable and completing business on time without OHS problems. One

enterprise found that ‘cowboy’ sub-contractors who take shortcuts on safety were

also usually not professional in terms of quality of work. Good OHS was considered

useful as a marketing tool.

Management commitment and employee understanding of responsibilities

This was identified as a critical issue in all the case study enterprises. Management

commitment was driven by the different drivers operating in each enterprise and

had an impact on sub-contractor behaviour. In one case study enterprise, a sub-


Domestic Housing

contractor reported that he chose to work for the company because “of the

emphasis the company places on safety”. Further, he chose not to work with some

other companies “because of their cavalier approach to OHS”.


Training was cited as central to improvements in OHS in all the case study

enterprises. In particular, it was reported that it was important that supervisors

were competent and both understood and used safe building practice. One

supervisor reported that OHS training “made me more aware and observant. Now

I’ll look for things - situations which could be hazardous before things go wrong.”

Also considered important was industry-specific induction training followed up by

site-specific induction training.

OHS management system

Although it was emphasised that OHS management systems should encourage

problem solving in the variety of situations that occur on building sites, there was

a general consensus that an appropriate systematic approach was required. This

should have been tailored to the specific needs of the domestic sector and

included, but not be limited to, sub-contractor management, hazard management

and auditing. There was considerable discussion in one case study enterprise

concerning whether these initiatives required trade-based rather than enterprise-

based approach.

Design

It was reported that the design of the residence made a significant difference to the

safety of the construction or renovation process. Renovations and additions could

provide a problem, because control over the design was much lower. It was

reported by one case study enterprise that they had often “got a situation which is

difficult to change and very expensive to achieve in a safe way.” At the time,

control over design was usually used to contain costs rather than improve safety.

Improving design in the domestic sector could have a significant impact on this

sector’s ability to manage OHS.


Strategies

The following strategies describe actions to manage OHS taken by the case study

enterprises as a result of the drivers.

Leadership in OHS

The majority of the case study enterprises had created, or planned to create,

leadership roles in OHS. In general, the person designated as OHS manager or

coordinator also had another management role in the organisation. The allocation

of the responsibility for OHS was aimed at facilitating improvement in OHS

performance. It was complemented by an OHS committee or through including

OHS as an agenda item of all management and construction meetings, which

provided a forum for the debate and resolution of OHS issues.


In one case study enterprise, training and education was fundamental to

improvements in OHS enterprise-wide. As a result of the concerns of one site

supervisor, two supervisors attended the Housing Industry Association (HIA) OHS

course for supervisors. This in turn led to further training enterprise-wide as well as

the establishment of the enterprise OHS committee and OHS policy and manual.

Sub-contractor safety

All of the case study enterprises considered the quality of their relationship with

their sub-contractors important to smooth functioning of their business. They

expressed the fear that by putting too many demands on their sub-contractors, the

sub-contractors may choose to work for enterprises that did not have such

stringent requirements. One company case study enterprise stated that in boom

time “it’s easier for sub-contractors to go and work for someone else” than comply

with the OHS demands of a particular enterprise. However, most of the case study

enterprises expected sub-contractors to sign an agreement covering the OHS

requirements of working on their sites and provided them with information on

unusual hazards on site, prior to commencement of work. Most of the case study

enterprises also considered previous OHS performance of the sub-contractor prior

to awarding work. One enterprise made it clear that they let sub-contractors go if

they did not meet OHS standards. On site, sub-contractors were managed by a

supervisor who usually had responsibility for a number of sites. One case study

enterprise had scheduled their sub-contractors to attend OHS programs run by the

HIA and the Master Builders’ Association (MBA).


Hazard management

In general, hazard management was reported to be undertaken informally. Hazards

tended to be dealt with immediately or conveyed to the supervisor if this was not

possible. However, one of the case study enterprises reported that supervisors

completed daily visual inspections and also formal inspections quarterly. This

enterprise also planned to make random formal inspections fortnightly in the

future. Another enterprise had introduced both job safety analysis and a

preventative maintenance program for electrical equipment of subcontractors.

However, the enterprise reported difficulty involving sub-contractors in these

processes.


None of the case study enterprises were assessing positive performance indicators

formally to monitor and improve their OHS programs. They did not believe that it

would be feasible or indeed useful to collect data regarding most of the NOHSC

identified preliminary performance indicators. However, all were recording

workers’ compensation claims and reported that they have had very few of these.

The following outcome data was collected by one of the case study enterprises on

its employees only:


■ number of medical treatments;

■ cost of medical treatments;

■ cost of workers’ compensation claims; and

■ number of first aid attendances.

Two of the companies informally used the standard of housekeeping on site as a

key visual indicator of the effectiveness of hazard control on site.


Each of the enterprises were in early stages of developing and implementing an

OHS management system suitable for their needs and the majority of enterprises

had not begun to collect outcome data. None of the enterprises had formally

begun to collect data on positive performance indicators, nor did they intend to.

However, the workshops, interviews and focus groups conducted with the case

study enterprises identified areas where participants believed positive performance

indicators might be useful.


The following positive performance indicators were suggested by the different case

study enterprises:

■ monthly feedback from site supervisors on the success of OHS management

strategies;

■ number of employees and subcontractors attending specified training courses;

■ audit of building schedules against building practice (to assess effectiveness of

trades allocation);

■ feedback from sub-contractors via periodic survey or interviews (to assess

effectiveness of trades allocation);

■ number of spot checks on worksites;

■ audit of worksite conducted by safety manager and site supervisors;

■ results of questionnaire to assess improving OHS awareness;

■ results of culture survey;

■ results of periodic focus group discussions on the topic of OHS;

■ feedback from tool box meetings;

■ internal assessment of competence following training;

■ results of testing after induction/OHS training program;

■ audit of minutes of OHS committee and management meetings;

■ internal/external audit of plant and equipment against legislative requirements;

■ monitor time taken to fix deficiencies identified at audit;

■ audit use and maintenance of PPE;

■ audit use and understanding of policies;

■ number of people actively involved in the development of policies;

■ number of people standing for election as employee representatives on OHS

committee;

■ internal/external audit of OHS management system;

■ monitor audit outcomes (by site and trade) against previous audit;

■ percentage of hazard reports remedied;

■ constructability checklist completed;

■ audit sub-contractor self-assessment; and

■ regular review of inspection and audit checklists.

As well as the indicators included in the above list, enterprises involved in the cases

studies reported that they informally assessed site safety by observing and

considering the following:

■ cleanliness or housekeeping standards on site;

■ standard of scaffolding;

■ role model provided by the site supervisor;

■ back-up provided by head office;


■ awareness and level of co-operation amongst sub-contractors and between sub-

contractors and the builder - this is assessed by such things as:

• sub-contractor willingness to draw the relevant person’s attention to the

problem and the time taken to rectify the cause;

• sub-contractor input into the development of safe work procedures etc;

• level of equipment damage;

• level of compliance from each trade with designated safe practices; and

■ number of OHS authority infringement notices.


The case studies in this industry sector revealed a number of issues, which may

have significant impact on OHS performance and the capacity for performance


OHS is seen as a low priority

All of the case study enterprises identified that the domestic sector, in general, did

not consider OHS a priority, although awareness seemed to be increasing. There

was also a lack of sector cohesion around OHS and this acted as a barrier to

improvement. Cost-benefit of OHS issues was a major consideration when

determining the implementation of OHS strategies. To some extent, OHS was

considered the next step forward - cost, productivity and quality workmanship

being the dominant considerations at present. It was reported that many small

operators were prepared to cut costs by taking risks in order to obtain work and

that the creation of a ‘level playing field’ was seen as imperative to raising the

priority of OHS across the board. Stronger industry networks around OHS would be

a useful strategy for improving OHS performance of the sector as a whole.

Improvement of enforcement strategies

Effective enforcement was seen as critical to improving OHS performance in the

housing sector. Enterprises believed that the most effective results from

enforcement would occur if enforcement was universal, with all builders and sub-

contractors facing equal likelihood of action and if enforcement was tailored to

the needs of the sector, with an education first approach. Enforcement should also

be directed to where the responsibilities and control lie. For example, it was argued

that legal responsibility should also be placed where the finances were - with the

owner.


Formal OHS systems vs informal systems

There are specific needs for the housing sector regarding OHS management systems

because of the sector’s less developed infrastructure. Effective management

systems, not bureaucratic structures, are required. One sub-contractor

summarised that in his opinion, it was more important for people to have sufficient

knowledge and experience to be able to solve problems when they were faced with

new situations that were a threat to OHS, rather than be reliant on the

requirements of a procedure manual. Assistance is required in this sector of the

industry to develop appropriate OHS management and auditing systems. Particular

emphasis is required on sub-contractor safety and hazard management.


The case study enterprises indicated that OHS needed to be addressed in the

training and registration requirements of housing personnel so that it became an

industry-wide issue rather than a enterprise-driven issue. This was seen as critical

by the case study enterprises because there are many small operators who are

prepared to cut costs by taking risks in order to obtain work. In this environment

good OHS could be a competitive disadvantage, unless an industry-wide stance was

taken to improve OHS practices. It was also suggested by one case study enterprise

that incentives for OHS training in the housing sector could be linked to a tangible

benefit such as a reduction in workers’ compensation premiums and that the

different associations should tailor courses to meet the needs of their members.

It was also reported that generic OHS induction should be available through TAFE

or the HIA so that only site-specific material was required to be provided by the

enterprise. This would limit the time taken for induction purposes with contractors

who are used frequently, minimise the length of the enterprise induction, and

reduce the cost of the program.

Communication and participation

Only one of the case study enterprises had a formal OHS committee and this

committee did not have sub-contractor representation. In another case study

enterprise, it was reported that due to the fluctuating nature of the workforce, it

was not considered feasible to have a formal OHS committee but also that “the

basis of good performance in any aspect of the enterprise, including OHS, is good

two-way communication”. However, in all case study enterprises, general

communication depended on the presence of supervisors and management passing

on or receiving information on site. It seems that evaluation of the effectiveness of

communication in the domestic sector requires further investigation and

improvement in the future.


Working in isolation

Unlike other sectors in the construction industry, domestic housing tends to be

isolated work conducted by a series of essentially transient sub-contractors with

minimal active supervision by the principal. Supervisors may have responsibility

for many sites and their visits to sites may not coincide with the times the sub-

contractors are present. As direct supervision is unlikely to occur it is imperative

that there is a joint understanding of OHS requirements. To attain this

understanding there needs to be a strong participative approach to OHS at

industry level, not just enterprise level.

Design

Control over design is generally directed at keeping costs down rather than at

construction safety. In the additions and renovations segment of the market,

control over design was much lower. Integration of OHS considerations into the

design process in education of engineers and architects on an industry basis as well

as consideration of constructability during the design of residences requires focus

in the future.

Conclusion

All enterprises involved in the domestic housing case studies were in the process of

implementing OHS systems to varying degrees. In general, the work they were

doing was not as sophisticated as that done in the other sectors of the

construction industry. This was a result of many factors, including the smaller size

of the enterprises, lower levels of risk, knowledge levels in the sector, perceived

need and the drivers acting in the industry.

At present, the domestic sector requires practical, easy to digest, purpose specific

tools for OHS. It should not be assumed that what is suitable in the other sectors is

appropriate in the domestic sector. Any measures of OHS performance at present

should encourage implementation of appropriate OHS improvement strategies,

which take account of both costs and benefits to enterprises and sub-contractors.


The key high level drivers of good OHS performance were identified through the

case studies as:

■ senior management commitment;

■ competitive advantage obtained through demonstrating and marketing

successful OHS;

■ OHS obligations to employees and the public;

■ external enforcement; and

■ reducing costs associated with poor OHS (e.g. insurance premiums, lost time,

rehabilitation).

Strategies that were taken by enterprises as a result of the drivers were:

■ leadership in OHS;

■ design and planning initiatives;

■ methods for consultation, communication and participation;

■ management of sub-contractors;

■ systems and processes to manage OHS;

■ training and education initiatives;

■ risk management and control of hazards; and

■ auditing procedures.

Issues that may have a significant impact on OHS performance identified in the

case study enterprises were:

■ the standard of vocational education and training in the industry;

■ the management of sub-contractors;

■ the type of system (formal versus informal) for managing OHS; and

■ design and constructability of the structure.

Each of the industry sectors identified limitations with traditional OHS

performance measurement and were seeking to improve their approach to the

measurement of health and safety performance.

The enterprises involved in the case studies were supportive of the development of

positive performance indicators for OHS and recognised that indicators would

need to be suitable for construction enterprises at different stages of OHS

development.

The case study enterprises recognised the limitations of outcome measures that

indicate levels of failure in health and safety performance. It is thus concluded that

the commercial, civil and heavy engineering construction sectors are ready for the

introduction of positive performance indicators and measures such as those

offered in this report.


Industry Case Study Conclusion

However, a distinction needs to be drawn between these industry sectors and

domestic construction. The current uptake of positive performance indicators

across the domestic case study enterprises is lower than in the other sectors. The

domestic sector needs practical, easy to digest, purpose specific information and

tools to help identify and meet OHS requirements. Therefore, additional assistance

may be required to assist the domestic sector to apply and make good use of

positive performance indicators.


This section presents information on:

■ why positive performance indicators might be useful;

■ various types of positive performance indicators;

■ how positive performance indicators can be used;

■ factors that may affect the collection of information on OHS; and

■ selecting positive performance indicators for your enterprise.

Use of positive performance indicators

Measuring OHS performance will help enterprises identify and evaluate OHS

improvement strategies. To achieve this, indicators which give information about

the effectiveness of OHS management in the enterprise are needed. However,

positive performance indicators are only indicators - they give an indication of

how the enterprise is performing, they will not necessarily tell the whole story.

Positive performance indicators are like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. Enough of them

are needed to make up a reasonable picture of the enterprise’s OHS performance.

That is, to improve the understanding of the enterprise’s OHS performance, a range

of indicators needs to be measured, preferably at least one under each of the main

headings below. These headings represent the critical areas that were identified in

the research for this report.

The following are the best way to use positive performance indicators:

■ Firstly, the management and the workforce should collaborate and discuss the

results of the indicators to help determine what needs to be done to improve

health and safety in the enterprise.

■ Secondly, the indicators should be used to identify areas where improvements

can be made regarding health and safety.

■ Thirdly, collecting positive performance data will not in itself improve the

enterprise’s performance - there is no substitute for just doing a good job.

■ Lastly, there is flexibility in the use of positive performance indicators. The use

depends on the needs of the enterprise. For example, the selection of positive

performance indicators can be targeted to the enterprise’s overall priorities or

needs, or they can be used to help improve the performance on particular

projects.



Types of performance indicators

Performance indicators tend to fulfil three different functions; dials, alarm bells

and can openers (Carter et al, 1992). The worksheet at the end of this section also

refers to these types of indicators.

Dials are indicators that can be ‘read off’. They are quantitative. An example of a

dial indicator is - “the percentage of planned management visits to site conducted

over a specified time frame”.

Alarm bells are indicators of events that should never happen. They give an alert

that something is very wrong. These tend to be outcome measures such as the

number of injuries that occur.

Can openers are indicators that lead to the right questions or further investigation

in the right direction. An example is “average time taken to rectify high risk

hazards”. This information would need to be analysed to determine the reasons for

any delays. Alternatively, analysis might determine why there is a reduction in the

time taken, so that the process can be done right all of the time.

Some indicators only give information about how busy the enterprise has been

rather than how effective the strategies have been. An example of a busy-ness

indicator is ‘the number of people attending a training course’; this tells nothing

about the effectiveness of the training program. Busy-ness indicators might be

important at some stages, particularly if the enterprise’s OHS program is not yet

mature, in order to ensure that basic activities are happening at the planned pace.

They can also make accountability more transparent - in some of the case studies,

busy-ness indicators made the actions expected of people in the workplace very

clear. However, busy-ness indicators need to be balanced with other types of

indicators to get the best assessment of the enterprise’s OHS performance.

Using positive performance indicators

The suggested indicators for the construction industry can be used in different

ways, depending on the needs of the enterprise. Consider the following indicator:

•The extent to which the design of the structure enables safe construction,

rated on a scale of one to six:


1 2 3 4 5 6

Safety neglected Safety effectively

built in

This might be used to compare how different design companies perform in

designing for constructability. Alternatively, it could be used to see how the same

design company performs over time or over a number of projects. This information

might help in making decisions about which projects to tender for, which design

company to use, or how a given design company might be approached, based on

the performance of the design companies.

Factors that may affect the collection of information on OHS

There are some factors which may affect the way in which information about the

enterprise’s or contractors’ OHS performance is collected. Some small enterprises

may not keep records and they might need to be given good reasons to encourage

them to participate in collecting information relating to OHS. They may not

perceive any cost-benefit in collecting data and they would want to be convinced

that on-going data collection was useful to both the enterprise and the industry.

They might also need guidance on how to collect information and what to collect.

Short-term contracts may not be suitable for data collection purposes, especially if

statistically meaningful information is being sought. For similar reasons, it may be

difficult to compare safety performance between projects due to their diverse

nature. For example, the number and type of the on-site workforce may vary

depending on the stage of the construction process. It might be like comparing

apples and pears. However, for some performance measures, this will not be a

problem.

Selecting a range of performance indicators

The chosen range of indicators should include a selection of ‘dials’, ‘alarm bells’

and ‘can openers’ to help balance the understanding of the OHS performance of

the enterprise. A selection of suggested positive performance indicators is listed

below. Some of these may be directly applicable to the enterprise, or it may be

desirable to work out specific indicators for the enterprise using the worksheet at

the end of this section.

Different positive performance indicators are relevant at different times. For

example, this might vary according to the stage of the construction process or the

complexity of the project. As the enterprise’s OHS program matures, different

positive performance indicators will be needed to help identify the next stage in

the development of the enterprise.

Outcome indicators are also a necessary part of the range of indicators to give a

more complete picture. Some examples of outcome indicators are:


■ medical treatment injury rate;


■ compensable injury rate;

■ minor injury (first aid) injury rate;

■ average lost time rate;

■ all incident case rate;

■ cost of claims per project;

■ rehabilitation case rate; and

■ near-miss frequency rate.

The choice of performance indicators will vary depending on the maturity of the

OHS program in the enterprise. For example, during the early stages, a higher

number of ‘busy-ness’ indicators might be needed to show that certain basic things

are being done. As the program matures and OHS becomes part of the

organisational culture, these activities can be expected to become more reliable, so

the focus can shift to their effectiveness and how to refine them. Positive

performance indicators can help in this process.

The following list of positive performance indicators has been developed

specifically for use within the construction industry. These positive performance

indicators should be used to assist the industry and to assess the effectiveness of

OHS improvement strategies and could be used either within an enterprise or

across enterprises.

The list is based on a distillation of the results of the sixteen case studies across all

sectors of the construction industry - commercial, civil, heavy engineering and

domestic construction. From the case studies, the indicators that were currently in

use by enterprises and the indicators that enterprises would like or plan to use

were grouped under five main headings:

1. planning and design;

2. management processes;

3. risk management;

4. psycho-social working environment; and

5. monitoring.

The list of indicators was then refined using the approach described in the

worksheet at the end of this section and the number of indicators was reduced. The

list is not exhaustive. Other indicators which are in use or were perceived to be

relevant measures in the case study enterprises are found in the industry case

study summaries.

The best approach to developing performance indicators in the construction

industry is to choose from the list below and use the worksheet to develop

indicators of OHS performance specific for the enterprise or project.


Positive performance indicators for the construction industry

1. Planning and Design

Occupational health and safety is integrated into the design and planning phases

and activities of the project.

Indicators:

■ The extent to which the design of the structure enables safe construction,

rated on a scale of one to six:

■ The extent to which site set-up contributes to safe construction, rated on a scale

of one to six:

■ The extent to which planning and scheduling contributes to safe

construction, rated on a scale of one to six:

■ Percentage of design changes required as a result of OHS problems, calculated

over a specified time frame.

■ Percentage of incidents where poor design was a root cause, calculated over a

specified time frame.

2. Management Processes

Management at all levels demonstrates genuine commitment to and provides

appropriate leadership in OHS.

Indicators:

■ The effectiveness of implementation of site specific OHS plans, rated on a scale of

one to six:

■ Percentage of planned formal management reviews of OHS that are conducted,

over a specified time frame.

■ Rating of management commitment via workforce survey.


1 2 3 4 5 6


built in

1 2 3 4 5 6


built in

1 2 3 4 5 6


built in

1 2 3 4 5 6

Very poor Excellent

■ Percentage change in the assessment score for sub-contractors’ OHS plans,

ranked against specified criteria, during the life of a project or across a number

of projects.

■ Percentage change in number of internal OHS non-compliance warnings issued to

each sub-contractor on site, over a specified time frame.

■ Percentage of planned management visits to site conducted, over a specified

time frame.

3. Risk Management

Risks/hazards on site are eliminated or controlled.

Indicators:

■ The proportion of items identified through safety walks, inspections etc that are

repeat items, measured over a specified time frame.

■ Proportion of identified hazards that are medium to high risk, over a specified

time frame.

■ Percentage of unplanned down time for plant and equipment.

■ The effectiveness of job safety analyses or other risk management methods in

controlling high risk activities as rated on a scale of one to six:

■ The proportion of reported incidents that do not result in injury, compared with

those that do, over a specified time frame.

■ Average time taken to rectify high risk hazards. (This information needs to be

analysed to determine the reasons for any delays.)

■ Percentage of high risk hazards rectified within the planned time frame.

4. Psycho-Social Working Environment

The working environment provides people with the capabilities and opportunities

to effectively contribute to OHS management: they are actively engaged in

problem-solving and decision-making, and receive education and training that is

practical and fit for purpose.


1 2 3 4 5 6

Ineffective Highly effective


Indicators:

■ Percentage of employees assessed as competent in OHS following:

• inductions;

• training program(s);

• professional education (e.g. architectural design, engineering).

■ Rating of the effectiveness of communication (e.g. through toolbox, pre-start

meetings) via workforce survey on a scale of one to six:

■ Ratings of the effectiveness of employee participation in OHS management

(including the OHS committee) via workforce survey on a scale of one to six:

5. Monitoring

OHS is self-assessed and/or independently audited for effectiveness of systems

and practices.

Indicators:

■ Percentage change in internal or independent audit score, over a specified

time frame.

■ Percentage changes in number of corrective actions required, over a specified

time frame.

1 2 3 4 5 6

Very poor Excellent

1 2 3 4 5 6

Very poor Excellent

NOTE: It should be noted that the workshop worksheet presented in this report was not

developed as part of this project. It provides an example of an approach to developing

positive performance indicators and should not be considered as the only means for the

development of positive performance indicators.

WORKSHOP WORKSHEET

Developing key performance indicators for OHS

Acknowledgement

This workshop was designed by Andrea Shaw of Shaw Idea Pty Ltd and Verna Blewett of

New Horizon Consulting Pty Ltd and they maintain copyright over this material. It is

reproduced with their permission. Construction companies are able to reproduce and

use this worksheet in their own organisations provided acknowledgement of the

copyright owners is made. Permission is not granted for commercial use of the

worksheet, only for non-commercial use by construction companies.

How to use this workshop

You will get the best results from this workshop if management and employees

work collaboratively to determine your OHS performance indicators. The OHS

committee for your enterprise or project is usually a good group to use.

Consider involving other key personnel, too, such as representatives of major

contractors. Simply work through the steps on the worksheet described below.

Step 1 - Establish your goal for OHS

What is your goal for OHS management on this site?

(Steer away from measures masquerading as goals. For example, zero injuries is

not a goal, it’s a measure. Ask “what have you achieved when you’ve achieved

zero injuries?”. You’ll get something like, “a safe and healthy work

environment”.)


© Shaw Idea Pty Ltd and New Horizon Consulting Pty Ltd 1996.

Step 2 - Determine the objectives that will let you fulfil the goal

What will you have to do to achieve this goal - ie what are your objectives?

(These might be things like, “provide everyone with the competencies they

need to perform their job effectively” or “establish more effective

consultation”.)

Choose one of your objectives to work on:

Step 3 - Develop a list of KPIs

Brainstorm your answers to the following questions about

the chosen objective:

• How would we know if we have achieved that objective?

• What tells us that we are performing well or badly in getting there?



Step 4 - Refine your KPIs

Next, refine that list:

• Cross off any silly or irrelevant items.

• Compare the list to the ACCURATE checklist for good performance indicators

and cross off any which don’t have the necessary features.

ACCURATE:

Assessable or measurable;

Controllable - able to be changed by what you do in health and safety

management;

Central and relevant to what you are trying to achieve;

Understandable and clear;

Reliable - providing the same measures when assessed by different people;

Acceptable to the users as true indicators of performance;

Timely; and

Efficient to monitor.

• Do you have the right balance of dials, alarm bells and can openers?

Dials - are indicators that you can ‘read off’. They are quantitative. An

example of a dial indicator is “the percentage of planned management visits to

site conducted, over a specified time frame”.

Alarm bells - are indicators of events that should never happen. They alert you

that something is very wrong. These tend to be outcome measures such as the

number of injuries that occur.

Can openers - are indicators that lead you to ask the right questions or

investigate further in the right direction. An example is “average time taken to

rectify high risk hazards”. This information would need to be analysed to

determine the reasons for any delays. Alternatively you might want to work

out why there is a reduction in the time taken so that you can do it right all of

the time.

• Is the item only telling you how busy you are, not how effective you are?

• Will the performance indicators you have left help you to improve your

performance?

• Do you have too many performance indicators?

• Do you have enough performance indicators?



Step 5 - List your KPIs

Write down the performance indicators you have left. These become your

Key Performance Indicators, or KPIs.

Step 6 - Determine how to measure your KPIs

Use the following table to summarise your answers to the following

questions:

• How can our KPIs be measured?

• What do we need to set up a measurement system?

• What is our current measurement against each KPI?

KPIs How What do we Current measured? need to do? Measure




Appendix 1

Performance Measurement Construction Working Group Members

Organisation Representative Contact details

Chairperson Mr Tony Cooke

Trades and Labour Council of WA Tel: (08) 9328 7877

27 Brewer Street Fax: (08) 9328 8132

Perth WA 6000 Email: [email protected]

ACTU Mr Lindsay Fraser

CFMEU Tel: (02) 9267 3929

2nd Floor, 361 Kent St Fax: (02) 9262 1465

Sydney NSW 2000 Email: [email protected]

ACCI Mr George Gay

Housing Industry Association Tel: (03) 9280 8260

3/70 Jolimont St Fax: (03) 9654 7332

Jolimont VIC 3002 Email: [email protected]

NSW Mr Daren McDonald

NSW WorkCover Authority Tel: (02) 9370 5379

400 Kent Street Fax: (02) 9370 6100

Sydney NSW 2000 Email: [email protected]

SA Ms Rose Mitchell

SA WorkCover Corporation Tel: (08) 8233 2506

100 Waymouth Street Fax: (08) 8233 2223

Adelaide SA 5001 Email: [email protected]

ACTU Peter Moylan

ACTU Tel: (03) 9664 7310

Trades Hall, 54 Victoria Street Fax: (03) 9663 8220

Carlton South VIC 3053 Email: [email protected]

ACCI Mr Dino Ramondetta

MBA Victoria Tel: (03) 9411 4555

332 Albert St Fax: (03) 9411 4592

East Melbourne VIC 3002 Email: [email protected]

ACCI David Shaw

ACCI Tel: (03) 9289 5286

55 Exhibition Street Fax: (03) 9289 5250

Melbourne VIC 3000 Email: [email protected]

Appendixes

mailto:[email protected]









Organisation Representative Contact details

ACTU Mr Peter Tighe

Communication, Electrical and

Plumbing Union

(Engineering and Electrical) Tel : (02) 9597 4499

52 Bay Street Fax: (02) 9597 6354

Rockdale NSW 2216 Email: [email protected]

NOHSC Project Officer

Ms Rebecca Mitchell

Senior Officer

Epidemiology Unit

NOHSC Tel: (02) 9577 9302

92 Parramatta Rd Fax: (02) 9577 9300

Camperdown NSW 2050 Email: [email protected]

NOHSC Dr Tim Driscoll

Head

Epidemiology Unit

NOHSC Tel: (02) 9577 9295



NOHSC Ms Lyn Maddock

Executive Director

Performance Measurement

and Planning

NOHSC Tel: (02) 9577 9367



OBSERVER Anne-Louise Slack

Housing Industry Association Tel: (02) 9633 4488

10 Pitt Street Fax: (02) 9689 3090

Parramatta NSW 2150 Email: [email protected]

OBSERVER Peter Southwood-Jones

DEWRSB Tel: (02) 6243 7303

Garema Court Fax: (02) 6243 7907

148 - 180 City Walk Email: peter.southwood-jones

Canberra ACT 2600 @dewrsb.gov.au







Appendix 2

Organisational, workplace and workforce characteristics reported to be

associated with injury experience

There are several factors that have been associated with either a decrease or

increase in the injury experience of an enterprise. This appendix briefly outlines

several factors that have been reported in prior research that may influence the

injury experience of an enterprise. For a comprehensive review of factors that

have been associated with both successful and unsuccessful safety, health and

environment management (see Hale & Hovden, in Feyer & Williamson (1998)).

Thorough investigations are usually conducted following breaches of safety in the

workplace. These safety breaches may or may not result in work-related fatalities.

Some of the well known incidents that involved breaches of safety include the

Three Mile Island and Chenobyl nuclear power plant incidents, the leak of methyl

isocyanate in Bhopal, the Piper Alpha oil and gas rig explosion and fire, the

Challenger space shuttle explosion, and the Moura mine No. 4 and No. 2 explosions

and the Longford gas explosion in Australia. The investigations conducted

following incidents such as these often provide an analysis of the factors that

contributed to the occurrence of the particular incident.

Similarly, a number of research studies have identified factors, including

organisational, workplace and workforce characteristics, that have been found to

be associated with either good or poor safety performance at the workplace or

organisational level.

It is apparent from the literature that there are some contradictory findings

regarding what factors contribute to the successful management of health and

safety in an enterprise (Hale & Hovden, 1998). Findings from research studies

indicate that the type of enterprise studied and/or the state of development of the

enterprise’s practical application of OHS initiatives can have an influence on the

outcomes for an enterprise (Hale & Hovden, 1998).

It should also be acknowledged that there may also be a number of external

influences impacting on an enterprise that could influence the relationship

between particular organisational factors and OHS performance. In some cases, it

may not be possible to establish clear links between organisational characteristics

and safety performance (Hale & Hovden, 1998).

However, many of the investigations that were conducted involving major

breaches of safety found that organisational and management factors played a

predominant role as the precursor to the failure of systems that resulted in the

incidents occurring (Nichols & Marcus, 1990).

Also, research studies found several organisational factors that were found to

either be associated with good (Table 4) or poor (Table 5) performance regarding

injury experience.



Table 4. Organisational factors reported to be associated with lower injury experience

Organisational factors Research studies

Larger firm size Salminen et al, 1993; Wooden & Roberston, 1997

Regular safety audits conducted Smith et al, 1978; Shannon et al, 1997; WorkSafe

WA, 1998

Top management actively involved in Simonds & Saafai-Sahrai, 1977; Cohen, 1977;

safety and strong commitment to safety Smith et al, 1978; Osborn & Jackson, 1988;

Shannon et al, 1996; Shannon et al, 1997

Good injury record keeping Simonds & Saafai-Sahrai, 1977

Use of accident cost analysis Simonds & Saafai-Sahrai, 1977

Use of standard operating procedures Gun & Ryan, 1994

Information regarding safety is highly

organised and readily accessible WorkSafe WA, 1998

Presence of effective health and safety

committees and fewer complaints and Boden et al, 1984; Gallagher, 1997;

serious citations by a health and safety body Hale & Hovden, 1998

Good communication and good relations Cohen, 1977; Smith et al, 1978;

between management and workers Shannon et al, 1997; WorkSafe WA, 1998

Defining health and safety in every

manager’s job description Shannon, 1998

Importance of health and safety in

manager’s annual appraisals Shannon, 1998

Attendance of senior managers at health

and safety meetings Shannon, 1998

Involvement of supervisor in accident

prevention Smith et al, 1978; Simard & Marchand, 1994

Highly developed safety structures,

comprehensive written procedures and

clearly identified areas of responsibility

for safety WorkSafe WA, 1998

Attitudes or perception of safety can be Zohar, 1980; Dedobbeleer & Beland, 1991 and 1998;

useful in identifying characteristics of the Coyle et al, 1995; Shaw & Blewett, 1996; Williamson,

workforce’s safety climate et al, 1997; Hayes et al, 1998; WorkSafe WA, 1998

Good management in the utilisation of

resources and production planning

and monitoring Smith et al, 1978

Some association found between safety

training of management and reduced

risk of injury Gun & Ryan, 1994

Table 5. Organisational factors reported to be associated with a poor record regarding

injury experience

Organisational factors Research studies

Hurried complete of job associated with

greater injury/ incident rates Salminen et al, 1993

Accident risk greater for sub-contractors

than main contractors Salminen et al, 1993; WorkSafe WA, 1998

Poor correlation found between presence

of a safety audit system and accident

performance in South African mines Eisner, 1993

Use of safety bonuses and increased

risk of injury Gun & Ryan, 1994

Existence of a health and safety policy

not related to lower LTIFR Smith et al, 1978; Shannon, 1998

Status of health and safety officer not

related to lower LTIFR Shannon, 1998

Two factors in the workplace (good housekeeping and provision of safety devices on machinery) were

found to consistently be associated with reduced injury experience in an enterprise (Table 6).

Table 6. Workplace factors reported to be associated with lower injury experience

Workplace factors Research studies

Good housekeeping Simonds & Saafai-Sahrai, 1977; Cohen, 1977; Smith

et al, 1978; Shannon et al, 1997; Harper & Koehn, 1998

Safety devices on machinery Simonds & Saafai-Sahrai, 1977; Shannon et al, 1997

The workforces of enterprises with good safety records were shown to have a number of

characteristics, such as experience and workers who had received training, which distinguished them

from enterprises with poor safety records (Table 7).

Table 7. Workforce characteristics reported to be associated with lower injury experience

Workforce characteristics Research studies

More experienced workforce less likely to Simonds & Saafai-Sahrai, 1977; Shannon et al, 1996;

have an incident Wooden & Roberston, 1997; Harper & Koehn, 1998;

Shannon, 1998

Lower employee turnover and absenteeism Smith et al, 1978; Shannon et al, 1997; Harper &

Koehn, 1998; Shannon, 1998

Trained workforce Cohen, 1977; Gun & Ryan, 1994; Shannon et al, 1997;

Harper & Koehn, 1998; WorkSafe WA, 1998

Involvement of workers in decision Shannon et al, 1996; Shannon et al, 1997; Harper &

making processes Koehn, 1998; WorkSafe WA, 1998; Shannon, 1998



Appendix 3

Risk factors associated with injury in the construction industry

Risk factors for work-related injury in the construction industry have been

identified in several investigative studies (Bentil & Rivara, 1996; Churcher &

Alwani-Starr, 1996; Holmes et al, 1997; BCITO, 1997; NOHSC, 1999). These research

studies involved obtaining information regarding injury experience either through

case studies in the construction industry, focus group discussions with

construction workers and/or through the analysis of injuries and fatalities in the

construction industry.

Work-related traumatic fatalities in Australia 1989-1992

Information regarding work-related traumatic fatalities of workers employed in the

construction industry during 1989 to 1992 was obtained from an investigation of

coronial files.

Many of the fatal incidents in the construction industry had similar circumstances

and common associated factors (NOHSC, 1999). Factors that were identified from

the coronial file as being a contributing factor to a particular type of fatal incident

are described below.

Fatal incidents where a worker fell from a ladder were found to involve several

contributing factors, including:

• ladders not securely anchored;

• fall protection devices not used, such as a safety harness;

• lack of a safe system of work;

• the worker losing their balance; and

• the worker receiving an electric shock, then falling from the ladder.

Incidents where a worker fell from the roof of a structure involved factors

such as:

• environmental agents, such as strong wind or wet and slippery roofs;

• fall protection devices not used, such as guard rails, safety mesh or safety

harnesses;

• falls through insufficient roof support either during construction, demolition or

renovation work;

• holes in the roof or unreinforced skylights not taped or sectioned off;

• the worker losing their balance;

• inexperience of the worker;

• lack of a safe system of work; and

• inadequate training of the worker regarding working at heights.

Incidents where a worker fell from scaffolding involved factors such as:

• fall protection devices not used, such as guard rails or safety harnesses;

• wheels on mobile scaffolding not locked and sloped terrain, causing the scaffold

to roll and overturn, or the worker to fall; and

• other equipment or objects falling and striking the scaffolding, causing the

worker to fall.

Incidents where a worker was hit by a falling object involved factors such as:


• lack of or inadequate support for structures which collapsed;

• environmental agents, such as strong winds; and

• the lack of identification of a safe distance to segregate workers from demolition

work.

Incidents where a worker was hit by a moving object involved factors such as:

• high visibility, reflective clothing or vests not worn;


• audible and/or visual reversing warning devices not fitted to vehicles or mobile

machinery;

• no segregation of vehicle access roads from pedestrian activity; and

• obscured vision due to objects or glare from the sun.

Factors that contributed to incidents where mobile machinery (such as forklifts,

rollers or excavators) overturned were:

• environmental agents, such as unstable, uneven, or sloped terrain;

• no rollover protection structure fitted to the mobile machinery;


• inexperience of the operator;

• operator not wearing a seat belt; and

• no use of marker pegs or barriers to indicate the edge of an embankment.

Incidents that involved a worker contacting electricity involved factors such as:

• electrical supply not disconnected or isolated before start of work;

• earth leakage devices, such as residual current devices or circuit breakers, not

fitted;

• defective electrical wiring;

• environmental agents, such as damp ground;


• inadequate clothing of worker (e.g. not wearing footwear, gloves);

• use of aluminium ladders while performing electrical work;

• energised equipment;

• incorrectly wired equipment;

• lack of safety cut off switches on equipment;



• equipment (such as cranes) contacting overhead electrical distribution wires;

• inexperience and inadequate training of the worker; and

• lack of supervision of apprentices.

Victorian construction industry

Holmes et al (1998) conducted interviews with 13 workers employed in small

business in the Victorian construction industry, specifically in the concreting,

plumbing, electrical and carpentry trades.

Risk factors associated with falls from a height

As part of this study, risk factors regarding falls from a height were identified by

workers. These risk factors and comments by workers included:

• working at height is a risk, but “it’s just a part of the job”;

• poor work practices (such as failure to secure ladders or working without rails or

harnesses), being careless, and adopting bad work habits;

• lack of awareness or experience;

• pressures imposed by tight budgets and schedules; and

• principal contractors’ failure to provide appropriate height access equipment,

such as general access scaffolding.

Control of the risk of falling from a height

In the opinion of the 13 construction workers, control of the risk of falling from a

height should be conducted through:

• the use of engineering controls, such as the installation of guard rails, handrails

or safety mesh (site manager or employer seen as responsible for providing these

measures);

• improved education and training of workers;

• employees taking greater care when working at height;

• appropriate selection and use of ladders;

• appropriate use of personal protective equipment (PPE), such as appropriate

safety footwear to avoid slipping and use of fall arrest devices;

• employers following regulations;

• more OHS officers on site;

• greater enforcement of work procedures; and

• more frequent inspections of work sites.

Barriers to the control of risks

The two main barriers seen by construction workers to controlling the risk of falls

from a height were stated to be monetary incentives and time constraints.

Perception of risk of employees and employers

Prior research by Holmes et al (1997) examined the perception of risk of both

employees (81 employees) and employers (87 employers) in the painting industry.

Both groups were asked to rate the order of ‘riskiness’ of a number of known

occupational risks for painters on a scale from 0 to 100.

Risk ratings for ‘immediate injury’ events rated by employers and employees are

shown in Figure 8. The findings of this study demonstrate that, to some extent,

employees and employers have differing views regarding occupational risks in the

workplace in the painting industry in Victoria. Employers were found to rate both

‘messy worksites’ and ‘careless workers’ significantly higher risks than did the

employees. It is also interesting to note that employers rated all activities, other

than electrical hazards, as more risky than did employees.

Figure 8.

Employees and employer ratings of

risk for immediate injury events in the

painting industry

Source: Holmes et al (1997)

New Zealand construction industry

In 1997, the Building and Construction Industry Training Organisation (BCITO) in

New Zealand conducted interviews with 64 workers from different sized firms in

the construction industry regarding their perceptions of risk factors associated

with non-fatal injuries.

Risk factors for injury

The risk factors for injury identified by New Zealand construction industry workers

included:

• pressure from the head contractor to complete the job;

• working on a difficult job by oneself;

• working with machinery, cranes and scaffolds;

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0Unsafe

ladders &

scaffolds

Work at

heights

Electrical

hazards

Messy

worksites

Accidents

& injuries

Careless

workers

Immediate injury events

Mean risk rating scoresEmployee

Employer


• not enough time allowed for the job;

• insufficient training and experience;

• lack of planning; and

• cost of safety measures.

Work and organisational risk factors

Work and organisational factors identified by BCITO that could increase the risk of

injury in the construction industry in New Zealand included:

• time pressure to complete the job;

• supervisor attitude and skill - need for good planning, supervision and

communication;

• sub-contractor management and co-ordination - possible increased risk of

hazards when several contractors are working on the same site; and

• teamwork and turnover - firms with high turnover of staff were more likely to

have higher injury rates.

Firm commitment to good OHS practices

BCITO identified that in construction firms committed to good OHS practices

(unlike those who were not) there was:

• involvement of senior managers in safety issues;

• integration of safety issues in day-to-day decisions and management systems;

• a sub-contractor selection process that addressed safety issues;

• workers actively involved in training and safety issues; and

• a long-term strategic review adopted by OHS management.

Washington construction industry

Through the use of case studies, a predictive model of the occurrence of non-fatal

injuries to workers in the construction industry was developed by Bentil and Rivara

(1996) in the United States. For this research, information regarding non-fatal

injuries in the construction industry was obtained from persons working on 730

commercial construction projects in Washington between 1991 and 1993.

Risk factors for injury

Risk factors for injury identified from the case studies included:

• workers involved in new construction had a higher rate of injury than workers

involved in renovations; and

• the rate of injuries increased with the financial size of the project, but the rate

decreased with the presence of supervisory workers.


ABS. (1999a) Year Book Australia. Catalogue No. 1301.0. Commonwealth of Australia: Canberra

ABS. (1999b) Labour Force, Australia. Catalogue No. 6203.0. Commonwealth of Australia: Canberra

Amis, R. and Booth, R. (1992) Monitoring health and safety management. The Safety and Health

Practitioner, Feb, 43-46.

BCITO. (1997) Injury prevention in the construction sector. BCITO and ACC: New Zealand.

Bentil, K. and Rivara, F. (1996) Development of a construction injury predictive model.

NIOSH: Atlanta, Georgia.

Boden, L., Hall, J., Levenstein, C. and Punnett, L. (1984) The impact of health and safety committees.

Journal of Occupational Medicine, vol 26, no 11, 829-834.

Bramber, L. (1994) Risk management: techniques and practices. In Ridley, J. Safety at Work 4 th

edition. Butterworth Heinemann: Oxford, p174-207.

Carter, N., Klein, R. and Day, P. (1992) How organisations measure success: The use of performance

indicators in government. Routledge: London, p49.

Casey, S. (1993) Set phases on stun and other true tales of design, technology and human error.

Aegean Publishing Company: Santa Barbara.

Churcher, D. and Alwani-Starr, G. (1996) Incorporating construction health and safety into the

design process. In Alves Dias, L. and Coble, R. (eds) (1996) Implementation of Safety and Health on

Construction Sites. Balkema: Netherlands, p29-39.

Cohen, A. (1977) Factors in successful occupational safety programs. Journal of Safety Research,

vol 9, no 4, 168-178.

Coyle, I., Sleeman, S. and Adams, N. (1995) Safety Climate. Journal of Safety Research, vol 26, no 4,

247-245.

Davis, B. (1998) Avoiding accidents by design. The Engineer, 5 June, 30-31.

Dedobbeleer, N. and Beland, F. (1991) A safety climate measure for construction sites. Journal of

Safety Research, vol 22, 97-103.

Dedobbeleer, N. and Beland, F. (1998) Is risk perception one of the dimensions of safety climate? In

Feyer, A-M., and Williamson, A (eds) (1998) Occupational Injury: Risk, Prevention and

Intervention. Taylor and Francis: UK, p73-81.

Eisner, H. (1993) Safety rating systems in South African mines. Journal of Health and Safety, 9, 25-30.

European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions. (1991) From Drawing

Board to Building Site. HMSO: London.

European Process Safety Centre. (1996) Safety Performance Measurement. Bookcraft Ltd: UK.

Gallagher, C. (1997) Health and Safety Management Systems: An Analysis of Systems Types and

Effectiveness. Worksafe Australia Grant. National Key Centre in Industrial Relations: Monash

University.

Glendon, I. and Booth, R. (1995) Risk management for the 1990s: Measuring management

performance in occupational health and safety. Journal of Occupational Health and Safety -

Australia and New Zealand, 11 (6), 559-565.

Gun, R. and Ryan, C. (1994) A case-control study of possible risk factors in the causation of

occupational injury. Safety Science, 18, 1-13.

Hale, A. and Hovden, J. (1998) Management and culture: the third age of safety. A review of

approaches to organisational aspects of safety, health and environment. In Feyer, A-M., and

Williamson, A (eds) (1998) Occupational Injury: Risk, Prevention and Intervention. Taylor and

Francis: UK, p129-165.

Harper, R. and Koehn, E. (1998) Managing industrial construction safety in Southeast Texas. Journal

of Construction Engineering and Management, Nov/Dec, 452-457.


References


Harrison, J., Frommer, M., Ruck. E. and Blyth, F. (1989) Deaths as a result of work-related injury in

Australia. Medical Journal of Australia, 150, 118-125.

Hayes, B., Perander, J., Smecko, T. and Trask, J. (1998) Measuring perceptions of workplace safety:

development and validation of the work safety scale. Journal of Safety Research, vol 29, no 3,

145-161.

Hinze, J., Coble, R., Elliott, B. (1999) Intergrating construction worker protection into project design.

In Singh, A., Hinze, J. and Coble, R. (eds) (1999) Implementation of Safety and Health on Construction

Sites. Balkema: Netherlands, p395-401.

Holmes, N., Triggs, T., Gifford, S. and Dawkins, A. (1997) Occupational injury risk in a blue collar,

small business industry: implications for prevention. Safety Science, vol 25, no 1-3, 67-78.

Holmes, N., Lingard, H., Yesilyurt, Z. and DeMunk, F. (1998) Meanings of risk control in small business

construction firms. RMIT: Victoria.

Hopkins, A. (1995) Making Safety Work: Getting Management Commitment to Occupational Health

and Safety. Allen & Unwin Pty Ltd: NSW.

Hopkins, A. (1999) Managing Major Hazards: The Lessons of the Moura Mine Disaster. Allen & Unwin

Pty Ltd: NSW.

Kletz, T. (1993) Accident data - the need for a new look at the sort of data that are collected and

analysed. Safety Science, 16, 407-415.

Labour Ministers Council. (1998) Comparative Performance Monitoring: Occupational Health and

Safety and Workers’ Compensation. Commonwealth of Australia: Canberra.

MacKenzie, J., Gibb, A., Bouchlaghem. N. (1999) Communication of health and safety in the design

phase. In Singh, A., Hinze, J. and Coble, R. (eds) (1999) Implementation of Safety and Health on

Construction Sites. Balkema: Netherlands, p419-426.

Neale, R. (1995) Managing International Construction Projects: An Overview. International Labour

Officer: Geneva.

Nichols, M and Marcus, A. (1990) Empirical studies of candidate leading indicators of safety in

nuclear power plants: an expanded view of human factors research. Proceedings of the Human

Factors Society 34 th Annual Meeting, 876-880.

NOHSC. (1994) Positive Performance Indicators: Beyond Lost Time Injuries. Part 1 - Issues. AGPS:

Canberra.

NOHSC. (1995) Occupational Health and Safety Performance Overviews, Selected Industries. Issue

No. 8 Construction industry. Commonwealth of Australia: Canberra.

NOHSC. (1998a) Compendium of workers’ compensation statistics, Australia, 1996-97.

NOHSC: Sydney.

NOHSC. (1998b) Work-related traumatic fatalities in Australia, 1989 to 1992. NOHSC: Sydney.

NOHSC. (1999) Work-related traumatic fatalities involving construction activities in Australia, 1989

to 1992. NOHSC: Sydney.

NSW Health Department. (1998) Health Outcome Performance Indicators: Monitoring Health

Improvement. NSW Health Department: NSW.

Ojanen, K., Seppala, A. and Aaltonen, M. (1988) Measurement methodology for the effects of accident

prevention programs. Scandinavian Journal of Work Environmental Health, 14, suppl 1, 95-96.

Osborne, R. and Jackson, D. (1988) Leaders, riverboat gamblers, or purposeful unintended

consequences in the management of complex, dangerous technologies. Academy of Management

Journal, vol 31, no 4, 924-947.

Reilly, B., Paci, P., Holl, P. (1995) Unions, safety committees and workplace injuries. British Journal of

Industrial Relations, 33, 2, 275-288.

Salminen, S., Saari, J., Saarela, K. and Rasanen, T. (1993) Organisational factors influencing serious

occupational accidents. Scandinavian Journal of Work and Environmental Health, 19, 352-357.

Shannon, H., Walters, V., Lewchuk, W., Richardson, J., Moran, L., Haines, T. and Verma, D. (1996)

Workplace organisational correlates of lost-time accident rates in manufacturing. American Journal

of Industrial Medicine, 29, 258-268.

Shannon, H., Mayr, J. and Haines, T. (1997) Overview of the relationship between organisational and

workplace factors and injury rates. Safety Science, vol 26, no 3, 201-217.

Shannon, H. (1998) Workplace organisational factors and occupational accidents. In Feyer, A-M.,

and Williamson, A (eds) (1998) Occupational Injury: Risk, Prevention and Intervention. Taylor and

Francis: UK, p73-81.

Shaw, A. and Blewett, V. (1994) Performance indicators for benchmarking. In NOHSC. (1994)

Positive Performance Indicators: Beyond Lost Time Injuries. Part 1 - Issues. AGPS: Canberra.

Shaw, A. and Blewett, V. (1995) Measuring performance in OHS: using positive performance

indicators. Journal of Occupational Health and Safety - Australia and New Zealand, 11, (4),

353-358.

Shaw, A. and Blewett, V. (1996) Telling tales: OHS and organisational culture. Journal of

Occupational Health and Safety - Australia and New Zealand, 12, (2), 185-191.

Simard, M. and Marchand, A. (1994) The behaviour of first-line supervisors in accident prevention

and effectiveness in occupational safety. Safety Science, 17, 169-185.

Simonds, R. and Saafai-Sahrai, Y. (1977) Factors apparently affecting injury frequency in eleven

matched pairs of companies. Journal of Safety Research, vol 9, no 3, 120-127.

Smith, M., Cohen, H., Cohen, A. and Cleveland, R. (1978) Characteristics of successful safety

programs. Journal of Safety Research, vol 10, no 1, 5-15.

Williamson, A., Feyer, A-M., Cairns, D. and Biancotti, D. (1997) The development of a measure of

safety climate: the role of safety perceptions and attitudes. Safety Science, vol 25, no 1-3, 15-27.

Wooden, M. and Robertson, F. (1997) Determinants of work-related injuries: an inter-industry

analysis. National Institute of Labour Studies: South Australia.

WorkSafe WA (1998) The WorkSafe Western Australia Commission Workplace Change Project Report:

Volumes 1 and 2. WorkSafe Western Australia Commission: Western Australia.

Zohar, D. (1980) Safety climate in industrial organisations: theoretical and applied implications.

Journal of Applied Psychology, vol 65, no 1, 96-102.


ohs performance measurement in the construction industry · ohs performance measurement in the...

Documents